S T MARYS CATHEDRAL
EDI N BU RGH
:R' to %a^ 1^"
X
t-1*J
ROMA RU1T.
THE
PILLARS OF ROME
BROKEN:
WHEREIN
ALL THE SEVERAL PLEAS FOR THE POPE'S AUTHORITY IN
ENGLAND, WITH ALL THE MATERIAL DEFENCES OF THEM,
AS THEY HAVE BEEN URGED BY ROMANISTS FROM
THE BEGINNING OF OUR REFORMATION TO THIS
DAY, ARE REVISED AND ANSWERED.
TO WHICH IS SUBJOINED
A SEASONABLE ALARM
TO ALL SORTS OF ENGLISHMEN, AGAINST POPERY, BOTH
FROM THEIR OATHS AND THEIR INTERESTS.
BY FH. FULLWOOD, D.D.,
ARCHDEACON OF TOTNES IN DEVON.
A NEW EDITION REVISED
By
CHARLES HARDWICK, M. A.,
FELLOW OF ST. CATHARINE'S HALL, CAMBRIDGE.
CAMBRIDGE :
J. AND. J. J. DEIGHTON.
JOHN W. PARKER, WEST STRAND, LONDON.
M.DCCC.XLVII.
[TOUTO yap KOI (popriKov Kai oil froppoo rf/s 'lovda'iKrjs
VOTTJTOS TTfpiypcupeiv rrj 'Pw/u.?; T^V fKK\r)criav. Nilus, archiep.
Thessal. He Primatu Papec Romani. Lib. n. p. 34 ; ed.
Salmas. ]
rriHE object of the following reprint is to supply
on the subject of the papal jurisdiction a
well-digested text-book. Many persons who take an
interest in that question, are wholly precluded from
historical investigation through their want of the
necessary leisure ; while others by studying the con
troversy under one single aspect, or for the satisfac
tion of particular doubts, have frequently arrived at
very partial conclusions. To both these classes a
careful synopsis of the whole body of testimony
will not fail to be of service ; and such a synopsis
has been already provided in this Treatise of Arch
deacon Full wood 1 . He would have 'the difference
clearly stated, and the arguments stripped of their
cumber, and the controversy so reduced, that the
world may perceive where we are ; and that doubt
ful inquirers after truth and the safest religion may
satisfy their consciences and fix their practice 2 .'
1 The name is written indifferently FuKwood and Fuhvood.
2 See Introduction and Epistle Dedicatory.
IV
On the three qualities of comprehension, per
spicuity, and arrangement, are rested his chief
claims to consideration ; nor can any one, in ques
tions like the present, possess qualities more likely
to obtain it.
Should it appear, therefore, that the elaborate
Treatises of Jewel, Rainolds, Laud, Morton, Bram-
hall, Twysden, Hammond, and Stillingfleet, have
been faithfully reduced and methodized, the Church
of England will have cause to welcome the reap
pearance of this portion of Fullwood's writings,
and to cherish anew the remembrance of one who
can still, as in his lifetime, serve among the number
of her champions.
Very few particulars have come down to us
respecting the private history of FRANCIS FULLWOOD.
His own testimony assures us that he was educated
at the Charter-house 1 . From thence he was in all
probability removed to the University of Cam
bridge. His name occurs in the Admission-book
of Emmanuel College, with the further information
that he became B. A. in 1647 2 . Of his connexion
1 In the Dedication of his ' Discourse of the Visible Church,'
where he speaks of himself as ' formerly a plant in that excellent
nursery.'
2 Obligingly communicated by the Master of Emmanuel College.
with this society he himself makes mention in the
dedication of the ' Roma Ruit,' induced most pro
bably by the circumstance that Archbishop Bancroft
whom he addresses was also of Emmanuel College.
The increase of the revolutionary troubles would
prevent his graduating in the usual course : accord
ingly we find no trace of him in the University till
the period of the Restoration, 1660, when he was
created D. D. by royal mandate. On the 31st of
August in the same year he was installed as Arch
deacon of Totton or Totnes 1 . During the interval
of thirteen years, which had elapsed since his B. A.
degree, Fullwood was labouring for the cause of
truth and order in the south-western dioceses. His
first publication appears to have been ' Vindicisp
Mediorum et Mediatoris.' The date is 1651, and
he describes himself as ' Minister of the Gospel at
Staple Fitz-pane in the county of Somerset,' (8vo,
Lond. 1651). In this Treatise as in others, Full-
wood is refuting the extravagancies of the age
respecting the immediate communication of spi
ritual influences. Prefixed is a kind of pastoral
letter which he addressed to the 'pious flock at
Totnes,' warning them, through their clergyman,
1 Le Neve, Fasti, p. 97. Tho archdeaconry had remained
vacant since the death of Edward Cotton in 1647. After one
interval Fullwood was succeeded by Francis Attorhury.
VI
against the errors then prevalent. This circum
stance indicates a more than ordinary interest in
the town, which afterwards gave the name to his
archdeaconry 1 . In the following year he published
'The Churches and Ministry of England true
Churches and true Ministry, proved in a Sermon at
Wiviliscombe,' (4to, Lond. 1652). In 1656, ap
peared ' A true Relation of a Dispute between him
and one Thomas Salthouse,' (4to, Lond.) He is at
this time described as ' Minister of West Alvington,
in the county of Devon.' His antagonist was a very
unlearned Quaker. The next publication of our
Author was 'A Discourse of the Visible Church,
in a large Debate of this famous Question, viz.
Whether the Visible Church may be considered to
be truly a Church of Christ, without respect to
saving grace?' (4to, Lond. 1658.) In this Treatise
(which contains 296 pages, besides an Appendix on
Confirmation) Fullwood is still described as Min-
1 About the same time Fullwood appears to have published an
Examination of ' Want of Church Government no warrant for omis
sion of the Lord's Supper.' The author of this treatise was Henry
Jeanes (the antagonist of Bp. Taylor) ; it bears the date 1650, but
no copy of Fullwood's ' Examination' has been met with. Wood
(Athen. Oxon. Vol. n. p. 299) in mentioning this controversy gives
a few particulars respecting Fullwood. See also Blisse's Edition,
Vol. in. p. 591. Two slight notices occur in Wood's Fasti, ed.
Blisse, but both are unimportant. The same may be said of passing
references to Fullwood in Sylvester's ' Life of Baxter,' and other
contemporary writers.
Vll
ister of West Alviiigton in Devon. His elevation
to the archdeaconry of Totnes in 1660 did not abate
his former activity, nor lessen the usefulness of his
labours. In 1661, he put forth ' Some necessary
and seasonable Cases of Conscience about things
indifferent in matters of Religion, briefly yet faith
fully stated and resolved 1 ,' (8vo, Lond.) ; in 1667,
' The General Assembly, or the Necessity of receiv
ing the Communion in our public Congregations,
a sermon on Heb. xii. 23;' in 1672, 'The Necessity
of Keeping our Parish Churches, argued from the
Sin and Danger of the Schisms in the Church of
Corinth, and of the present Separation, in a Sermon
before the Judges at the Assizes at Exeter.' In
1679 appeared the 'Roma Ruit-,' at a time when
Churchmen were beginning to look forward with
apprehension to the reign of a Romish proselyte.
Its character and object are clearly described in
the 'Epistle Dedicatory' and the 'Preface to the
Reader.' In 168y was published 'Leges Anglise;
the Lawfulness of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the
Church of England, asserted and vindicated.' The
1 This treatise was published anonymously, and is assigned to
Fulhvood on the authority of the Bodleian Catalogue. In the
same Catalogue mention is made of two pamphlets on ' Toleration
not to be abused,' (Lond. 1672), both anonymous, but there classed
among Fullwood's writings.
2 The title was perhaps suggested by Featley's 'Roma Ruens.'
Vlll
main Treatise here assailed by Fullwood bears
the title 'Naked Truth, the 2nd Part:' it was
one of the many scurrilous productions of Edmund
Hickeringil, formerly Fellow of Gonville and Caius
College, Cambridge. The ' Leges Anglise' and the
'Roma Ruit' were bound up together, and pub
lished in 1681, with the title 'The Established
Church.' There was, however, at this time no new
edition of the 'Roma Ruit 1 .' The remaining works
of Fullwood (so far as the Editor can discover) are
as follows : ' The Case of the Times discussed ; being
an Exercitation of two cases upon Rom. xiii. 15,'
(8vo, Lond. 1683); 'The Socinian Controversy
touching the Son of God reduced, in a brief Essay
to prove the Son one in Essence with the Father,
upon Socinian principles, concessions, and reason,'
(8vo, Lond. 1693); 'A Parallel wherein it appears
that the Socinian agrees with the Papist, if not
exceeds him, in Idolatry, Antiscripturism, and Fana
ticism,' (8vo, Lond. 1693).
On the 27th of August, in this same year,
Francis Fullwood died 2 .
1 This statement rests on internal evidence of paging, typogra
phical errors, &c. ; yet in Clavel's ' Catalogue of Books printed since
the Fire,' 'the Established Church' is classed among the 'New
Works' published in Easter Term, 1681.
2 Le Neve, as above.
IX
It remains to be stated that the present reprint
of Fullwood's labours was undertaken at the sug
gestion of Professor Corrie, as a supplement to the
recent edition of Sir Roger Twysden's Historical
Vindication of the Church of England. The refer
ences throughout have been verified, and authorities
supplied within [ ], where Fullwood had given
none, or the name only of some writer in a side-
note. In a few instances, inaccuracies have been
detected, but they are generally such as may be
accounted for by the Author's inability to correct
the press, a circumstance dwelt upon by his Printer,
who begs that the ' escapes be not laid upon the
Author.' The Editor would enter a like plea, if it
be found that either in the foot-notes, or in the
Appendix on English Romanists, he has inserted
anything unworthy of the subject.
CHARLES HARDWICK.
ST. CATHARINE'S HALL, CAMBRIDGE,
Sept. 22, 1847.
REVERENDI88IMO IN CHRISTO PATRI
GULIELMO 1
ARCHIEPISCOPO CANTUARIENSI,
TOTIUS ANGLIC PRIMATI,
ET
HKGI.E SERENISSIMvE MAJESTATIS A SANCTIORIBUS CONCILIIS,
FRANCISCUS FULLWOOD,
OI.IM COLT.EGI1 EMMANUEL, APUD CANTABRlGIi NSIS,
LIBRUM HUNC, HUMILLIME D.D.D.
1 [i. e. William Bancroft.]
TO
THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD
GEORGE 1 LORD BISHOP OF WINTON,
PRELATK OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER.
MY VERY GOOD LORD,
BLESSED be God that I have survived this labour,
which I once feared I should have sunk under,
and that I live to publish my endeavours once more
in the service of the Church of England ; and thereby
have obtained my wished opportunity, to dedicate a
monument of my deep sense of your lordship's mani
fold obligations upon me.
In particular, I rejoice in the acknowledgment,
that I owe my public station, next under God and his
sacred Majesty, to your lordship's assistance and sole
interest, though I cannot think so much out of kind
ness to my person (then, altogether unknown to your
lordship) as aifection and care of the Church ; grounded
in a great and pious intention (however the object be
esteemed) truly worthy of so renowned a prelate, and
(many other ways) excellent and admired patriot of
the Church of England.
If either my former attempts have been anywise
available to the weakening the bulwarks of Noncon
formity, or my present essay may succeed, in any
1 [i. e. George Morlcy.]
xiv THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
measure, to evince or confirm the truth in this greater
controversy, I am happy ; that, as God hath some
glory, and the Church some advantage, so some ho
nour redounds upon your lordship, who with a virtuous
design gave me a capacity at first, and ever since
have quickened and animated my endeavours in those
services.
I may be permitted to name our controversy with
the Church of Rome, the great controversy: for
having been exercised in all the sorts of controversy
with adversaries on the other hand, I have found, that
all of them put together are not considerable, either
for weight of matter, or copiousness of learning, or
for art, strength, or number of adversaries, in com
parison of this.
It takes in the length of time, the breadth of
place, and is managed with the height of wit and
depth of subtilty ; the hills are covered with the
shadow of it, and its boughs are like the goodly
cedars.
My essay in these Treatises is to shorten and clear
the way ; and therefore, though I must run with it
through all time, I have reduced the place, and
removed the wit and subtilties, that would impede
our progress.
I have endeavoured to lop off luxuriant branches,
and swelling excrescences, to lay aside all personal
reflections, captious advantages, sophistical and sar-
castical wit, and to set the arguments on both sides
free from the darkness of all kind of cunning, either
of escape or reply, in their plain light and proper
strength ; as also to confine the controversy, as near
THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. xv
as I can, within the bounds of our own concern, i. e
our own Church.
And when this is done, the plain and naked truth
is, that the meanest of our other adversaries (I had
almost said the silly Quaker himself) seems to me to
have better grounds, and more like Christian, than
the glorious cause of the papacy.
But to draw a little nearer to our point, your
lordship cannot but observe, that one end of the
Roman compass is ever fixed upon the same centre,
and the sum of their clamour is, our disobedience to
the See of Home. Our defence stands upon a two
fold exception, (1) Against the Authority. (2) A-
gainst the Laws of Rome ; and if either be justified,
we are innocent.
The first exception (and the defence of our
Church against the authority of that See) is the mat
ter of this Treatise ; the second is reserved.
I have determined that all the arguments for the
pope's authority in England are reducible to a five
fold plea, the right of conversion as our apostle, the
right of a patriarch, the right of infallibility, the
right of prescription, and the right of universal pas
torship : the examination of them carries us through
our work.
Verily, to my knowledge, I have omitted nothing-
argumentative of any one of these pleas ; yea, I have
considered all those little inconsiderable things, which
I find any Romanists seem to make much of. But,
indeed, their pretended right of possession in Eng
land, and the universal pastorship (to which they
adhere as their surest holds,) have my most intended
xvi THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
and greatest strength, and care and diligence ; that
nothing material, or seemingly so, might escape either
unobserved, or not fully answered ; let not the con
trary be said, but shewn.
I have further laboured to contract the contro
versy two ways.
(1) By a very careful, as well as large, and I hope,
as clear state of the question, in my definition and
discourse of schism, at the beginning ; whereby mis
takes may be prevented, and much of matter disputed
by others excluded.
(2) By waving the dispute of such things as have
no influence into the conclusion ; and (according to my
use) giving as many and as large concessions to the
adversary, as our cause will suffer.
Now my end being favourably understood, I hope,
there is no need to ask your lordship's, or any other's,
pardon, for that I have chosen not to dispute two
great things :
(1) That in the words ' Tu es Petrus, et super hanc
Petram,' there is intended some respect, peculiar to
St Peter's person. It is generally acknowledged by
the most learned defenders of our Church, that St
Peter had a primacy of order, and your lordship
well knows, that many of the ancient fathers have
expressed as much ; and I intend no more.
(2) That tradition may be infallible, or inde
fectible, in the delivery of the essentials of religion,
for aught we know. By the essentials, we mean no
more, but the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Deca
logue, and the two Sacraments. In this I have my
second, and my reason too ; for then Rushworth's
THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. xvii
Dialogues, and the new methods of Roman opposition,
need not trouble us.
My good Lord, it is high time to beg your pardon,
that I have reason to . conclude with an excuse for a
long epistle : the truth is, I thought myself account
able to your lordship for a brief of the book, that
took its being from your lordship's encouragement ;
and the rather, because it seems unmannerly to
expect that your good old age should perplex itself
with controversy, which the good God continue long
and happy, to the honour of His Church on earth,
and then crown with the glory of heaven. It is the
hearty prayer of,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most obliged
and devoted servant,
FR. FULLWOOD.
A PREFACE TO THE READER.
GOOD READER,
OUR Roman adversaries claim the subjection of
the Church of England by several arguments,
but insist chiefly upon that of Possession, and the
Universal Pastorship. If any shall deign to answer
me, I think it reasonable to expect they should attack
me there, where they suppose their greatest strength
lies; otherwise, though they may seem to have the
advantage by catching shadows, if I am left unan
swered in those two main points, the substance of
their cause is lost.
I. For if it remain unproved that the Pope had
quiet possession here, and the contrary proof continue
unshaken, the argument of possession is on our side.
I doubt not but you will find that the Pope had
not possession here before ; that he took not posses
sion by Austin the Monk ; and that he had no such
possession here afterwards, sufficient to create or
evince a title.
It is confessed, that Austin took his arch
bishopric of Canterbury as the gift of Saint Gregory,
and having recalled many of the people to Christi
anity, both the converts and the converter gave great
submission and respect to Saint Gregory, then bishop
of Rome ; and how far the people were bound to obey
their parent that had begotten them, or he his mas-
xx A PREFACE
ter, that sent him and gave him the primacy, I need
not dispute.
But these things to our purpose are very certain.
(1) That conversion was anciently conceived to be
the ground of their obedience to Saint Gregory,
which plea is now deserted, and that Saint Gregory
himself abhorred the very title of universal bishop, the
only thing now insisted on.
(2) It is also certain that the addition of autho
rity, which the King's silence, permission, or conni
vance gave to Austin, was more than Saint Gregory's
grant, and yet that connivance of the new-converted
King, in the circumstances of so great obligation and
surprise, (who might not know, or consider, or be
willing to exercise his royal power then in the point)
could never give away the supremacy, inherent in his
crown, from his successors for ever.
(3) It is likewise certain, that neither Saint
Gregory's grant, nor that King's permission, did or
could obtain possession for the Pope, by Austin, as
the Primate of Canterbury, over all the British
Churches and Bishops ; which were then many, and
had not the same reason from their conversion by
him to own his jurisdiction, but did stiffly reject all his
arguments and pretences for it. King JEthelbert,
the only Christian king at that time in England, had
not above the twentieth part of Britain within his
jurisdiction ; how then can it be imagined that all
the king of England's dominions, in England, and
Wales, and Scotland, and Ireland, should be con
cluded within the primacy of Canterbury, by Saint
Augustine's possession of so small a part ?
TO THE READER. xxi
(4) It is one thing to claim, another to possess.
Saint Augustine's commission was, to subject all Bri
tain ; to erect two archbishoprics and twelve bishop-
pries, under each of them ; but what possession he
got for his master, appears in that, after the death of
that Gregory and Austin, there were left but one
archbishop and two bishops, of the Eoman commu
nion, in all Britain.
(5) Moreover, the succeeding archbishops of
Canterbury soon after discontinued that small pos
session of England which Augustine had gotten ;
acknowledging they held of the crown, and not of the
Pope, resuming the ancient liberties of the English
Church, which before had been, and ought always to
be, independent on any other ; and which of right
returned, upon the return of their Christianity : and
accordingly our succeeding kings, with their nobles,
and commons, and clergy, upon all occasions, denied
the papal jurisdiction here, as contrary to the King's
natural supremacy, and the customs, liberties, and
laws of this kingdom.
And as Augustine could not give the mitre, so
neither could King John give the crown of England
to the bishop of Eome. For (as Matth. Paris relates)
' Philip Augustus answered the Pope's legate, no king,
no prince, can alienate or give away his kingdom, but
by consent of his barons (who, we know, protested
against King John's endeavour of that kind) bound
by knight's service to defend the said kingdom ; and
in case the Pope shall stand for the contrary error,
his holiness shall give to kingdoms a most pernicious
example :' so far is one unwarrantable act of a fear-
xxii A PREFACE
ful prince, under great temptations, from laying a
firm ground for the Pope's prescription. And it is
well known, that both the preceding and succeeding
kings of England defended the rights of the crown,
and disturbed the Pope's possession, upon stronger
grounds of nature, custom, and plain statutes, and the
very constitution of the kingdom, from time to time,
in all the main branches of supremacy, as, I doubt
not, but is made to appear by full and authentic
testimony beyond dispute.
II. The other great plea for the Pope's authority
in England is that of Universal Pastorship. Now if
this cannot be claimed by any right, either Divine,
civil, or ecclesiastical, but the contrary be evident,
and both the Scriptures, Emperors, Fathers, and
Councils did not only not grant, but deny and reject,
the Pope's Supremacy as an usurpation, what reason
hath this, or any other Church, to give away their
liberty upon bold and groundless claims ?
The pretence of civil right, by the grant of Em
perors, they are now ashamed of, for three reasons ;
it is too scant, and too mean, and apparently ground
less ; and our discourse of the Councils hath beaten
out an unanswerable argument against the claim by
any other right, whether ecclesiastical or Divine : for
all the general Councils are found, first, not to make
any such grant to the Pope, whereby the claim by
ecclesiastical right is to be maintained ; but, secondly,
they are all found making strict provisions against
his pretended authority, whereby they and the Ca
tholic Church in them deny his Divine right.
It is plainly acknowledged by Stapleton himself,
TO THE READER. xxiii
that, before the Council of Constance, Non Divino sed
humano jure, et positivis Ecclesice decretis, primatum
Romani Pontificis niti senserunt, speaking of the Fa
thers ; that is, the Fathers before that Council thought
the primacy of the Pope was not of Divine right, and
that it stood only upon the positive decrees of the
Church ; and yet he further confesseth in the same
place, that the power of the Pope now contended for
(nullo sane decreto publico definita est] ' is not defined by
any public Decree,' tacito tamen doctorum consensu.
Now what can remain, but that which we find him
immediately driven to, viz. to reject the pretence of
human right by positive Decrees of the Church, and
to adhere only (as he himself affirmeth they generally
now do) to the Divine right : Nunc (inquii) autem
nemini amplius Catholico dubium est, prorsus Divino
jure, et quidem illustribus Evangelii testimoniis hunc
Primatum niti.
Thus, how have they entangled themselves! If
they pretend a human right, he acknowledged they
cannot find it, where it ought to be found, in the
public decrees of the Church : if a Divine right, he
confesseth the Fathers denied it, before the Council
of Constance ; and he knows that Council condemned
it.
Stapleton at length affirms, that now no Catholic
doubts but the Pope's primacy is of Divine right;
whence the heart of the Koman cause is stabbed, by
these clear and sharp conclusions,
1st Conclusion : That all Catholics of the present
Roman Church do now hold a new article, touching
the Pope's primacy, not known to the Fathers before
xxiv A PREFACE TO THE READER.
the Council of Constance, A. D. 1415, and condemned
by that Council as an error.
2nd Conclusion : That therein the faith of the
present Roman Church stands counter to the faith,
decrees, and practices of all the first general Councils,
consisting of Fathers that flourished therein, long
before the Council of Constance, i. e. in their own
sense, the ancient Catholic Church.
You will find that the evidence hereof ariseth,
not only from the words of Stapleton, but from the
decrees of all the first eight general Councils, every
one of them, one way or other, expressly disclaiming
that supremacy which the Pope and his present
Church would arrogate ; and in those Councils all the
Fathers and the Catholic Church are confessedly con
cluded ; and consequently, antiquity, infallibility, and
tradition are not to be found at Rome.
The sum is, the Church of England, that holds
the true, ancient, Catholic faith, and the first four
general Councils, and hath the evidence of four more
on the point, cannot be blamed for rejecting, or not
readmitting, a novel and groundless usurpation, con
trary to them all, and contrary also to the profession
of the present Roman Church, that pretends to be
lieve that the ' faith of the first eight general Councils
is the Catholic faith.'
Imprimatur,
GUIL. JANE, R. P. D. HEN. Episc. LOND.,
a Sacris Dottiest.
Jan. 24, 1678.
THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS
AND SECTIONS.
PAGB
THE INTRODUCTION. THE DESIGN. THE CONTROVERSY CON
TRACTED INTO ONE POINT, VIZ. SCHISM ... 1
CHAPTER I.
THE DEFINITION OF SCHISM.
Sect. 1. Of the Act of it ... .3
Sect. 2. The Subject of Schism ... 4
Sect. 3. The Object of Schism ... 7
(1) Faith 7
(2) Worship .9
(3) Government ... .12
Sect. 4. The Conditions. Causeless. Voluntary . . 14
Sect. 5. The Application of Schism; it is not applicable
to us ... .... 17
In the Act ... .17
Or Cause 19
Sect. 6. The Application of it to the Romanists . 20
Sect. 7. The Charge retorted upon them
The Controversy broken into two Points. The Autho
rity. The Cause .... -24
CHAPTER II.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE PAPAL AUTHORITY IN ENGLAND. FIVE
ARGUMENTS PROPOSED AND BRIEFLY REFLECTED ON . 25
1. Conversion. 2. Prescription. 3. Western Patriarchate.
4. Infallibility. 5. Succession . 26
xxvi THE CONTENTS.
CHAPTER, III.
PAGE
OF THE POPE'S CLAIM FROM OUR CONVERSION, BY ELEUTHERIUS,
GREGORY ..... .29
CHAPTER IV.
His CLAIM AS PATRIARCH. FOUR PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN.
(1) The Pope was Patriarch of the West . . .34
(2) He had then a limited Jurisdiction ... 35
(3) His Patriarchate did not include Britain . . 38
(4) A Patriarch and Universal Bishop inconsistent . 40
CHAPTER V.
THE THIRD PAPAL CLAIM, PRESCRIPTION. THE CASE STATED 43
Their Plea. Our Answer in three Propositions, viz.
(1) The Pope never had possession absolutely . 44
(2) That which he had could never create a Title . ib.
(3) However his Title extinguished with his possession . ib.
CHAPTER VI.
THE PAPACY OF NO POWER HERE FOR THE FIRST 600 YEARS
(AUGUSTINE, DIONOTH) IN FACT, OR FAITH, &c. . . 45
Sect. 1. No one part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised
here for 600 hundred years ; not Ordination till 1100
years after Christ, &c. nor any other ... 50
Sect 2. No possession of belief of his Jurisdiction then, in
England or Scotland ...... 58
Sect. 3. This belief could have no ground in the Ancient
Canons. Apostolic, Nicene, Milevitan, &c. . . 60
Sect. 4. Of Councils. Sardica, Chalcedon, Constantinople . 62
Sect. 5. Arabic Canons forged ; not of Nice . . 68
Sect. 6. Ancient practice interpreted the Canons against the
Pope: Disposing of Patriarchs: S. Cyprian, S. Augus
tine's sense, in practice . . . . . .71
Sect. 7. The sayings of Ancient Popes, Agatho, Pelagius,
Gregory, Victor, against the pretence of Supremacy . 78
Sect. 8. The words of the Imperial Law against him . 104
Sect. 9. The Conclusion, touching possession in the first
Ages, viz. 600 years from Christ . . . .112
THE CONTENTS. xxvn
CHAPTER VII.
PAGE
THE POPE HAD NOT FULL POSSESSION HERE BEFORE HENRY
VIII. . . . 115
Sect. 1. Not in St. Augustine's time . . . . ib.
A true state of the question betwixt the Pope and the
King of England in seven particulars . . . 118
Sect. 2. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austin,
till Henry VIII .119
In eight distinctions of Supremacy . . ib.
The question stated by them . . . .120
CHAPTER VIII.
WHAT SUPREMACY HENRY VIII. TOOK FROM THE POPE ; THE
PARTICULARS OF IT ; WITH NOTES UPON THEM, &C. . 122
CHAPTER IX.
WHETHER THE POPE'S POSSESSION HERE WAS A QUIET POSSES
SION TILL HENRY VIII. AS TO THE POINT OF SUPREMACY 124
Sect. 1. Of Appeals to Rome. Three Notions of Appeal.
Appeals to Rome locally, or by Legates. Wilfrid. An-
selm ......... ib.
Sect. 2. Of the Possession by Legates; the occasion of them
here; their entertainment .... 134
CHAPTER X.
OF THE POPE'S LEGISLATIVE POWER HERE, BEFORE HENRY VIII.
CANONS OBLIGE us NOT WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. OUR
KINGS, SAXON, DANISH, NORMAN, MADE ECCLESIASTICAL
LAWS ........ 144
CHAPTER XI.
OF THE POWER OF PAPAL LICENCES, &c. IN EDWARD I., III.;
RICHARD II., HENRY IV., HENRY V., HENRY VI. , HENRY
VII.'s TIME ... 152
CHAPTER XII.
THE PATRONAGE OF THIS CHURCH ; EVER IN OUR OWN KINGS ;
BY HISTORY ; BY LAW . . . . . .160
XXVHI THE CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XIII.
PAGE
OF PETER-PENCE, AND OTHER PAYMENTS TO THE POPE . 170
First-fruits ..... 172
Payments Extraordinary . . . . . .175
Casual ....... . 178
CHAPTER XIV.
THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT OF PRESCRIPTION ; IT is ON
OUR SIDE ..... 180
On their side, of no force ...... 181
CHAPTER XV.
THE PLEA FROM INFALLIBILITY CONSIDERED ; IN ITS CONSE
QUENCE RETORTED . . . . . .183
Sect. 1. Scripture Examples for Infallibility . . . 185
High Priest not Infallible ; nothing to the Pope . 186
Apostles ........ 188
Sect. 2. Scripture-promises of Infallibility . . . 189
CHAPTER XVI.
SECOND ARGUMENT FOR INFALLIBILITY, viz. TRADITION ; FOUR
CONCESSIONS; THREE PROPOSITIONS ABOUT TRADITION.
ARGUMENTS, OBJECTIONS, &c. . . . . .194
CHAPTER XVII.
THE THIRD WAY OF ARGUMENT FOB INFALLIBILITY, VIZ. BY REA
SON ; THREE REASONS ANSWERED ; THE POINT ARGUED ;
RETORTED ........ 201
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE UNIVERSAL PASTORSHIP; ITS RIGHT, DIVINE OR HUMAN;
THIS, CIVIL OR ECCLESIASTICAL ; ALL EXAMINED. CONSTAN-
TINE, KING JOHN, JUSTINIAN, PHOCAS, &c. AS TO CIVIL
RIGHT . 200
THE CONTENTS. xxix
CHAPTER XIX.
PAGE
His ECCLESIASTICAL RIGHT BY GENERAL COUNCILS ; THE EIGHT
FIRST, TO WHICH HE IS SWORN. JUSTINIAN'S SANCTION OP
THEM. CANONS APOSTOLICAL ALLOWED BY THE COUNCIL OF
NICE AND EPHESUS ....... 216
Sect. 1. Canons of the Apostles ..... 219
Sect. 2. First General Council of Nice. Bellarmine's Eva
sion ......... 220
Sect. 3. Concil. (third General) Constantinop., A. D. 381 . 222
Sect. 4. Concil. Ephesin. (third General,) A. D. 431 . . 223
Sect. 5. Concil. Calced. (fourth General,) A. D. 451 . 225
Sect. 6. Concil. Constantin. 2, (the fifth General Council,)
A. D. 553 ....... 228
Sect. 7. Concil. Constant, (sixth General,) A.D. 681, v. 685.
Nicene. (seventh General,) A. D. 781 .... 229
Sect. 8. Concil. Constant, (eighth General) A.D. 869 . 230
Seven Conclusions from Councils ..... 231
Sect. 9. Of the Latin Church. The Councils of Constance,
Basil, &c. A.D. 1415, 1431 233
Sect. 10. The Greek Church. African Canons. Synod.
Carthag. Concil. Antiochen. The Faith of the Greek
Church since in the Point ..... 235
Sect. 11. The Sardican Canons. No Grant from their mat
ter, manner, or authority. No Appendix to the Council
of Nice. Zosimus his forgery; they were never rati
fied, nor received, as Universal ; and were contradicted
by after Councils ...... 239
CHAPTER XX.
THE POPE'S TITLE BY DIVINE RIGHT. THE QUESTION, WHY NOT
SOONER ? IT IS THEIR LAST REFUGE .... 245
Sect. 1. Whether the Government of the Church be Mo
narchical, Jure Divino ? Bellarmine. Reason. Scrip
ture ........ 246
Promises, Metaphors, and Example of the High Priest in
Scripture ........ 249
Sect. 2. Of St. Peter's Monarchy. Tu es Petrus . . 252
Fathers' Expressions of it . . . . . 258
Fathers corrupted, and Council of Chalcedon, by Thomas . 260
xxx THE CONTENTS
CHAPTER XXI.
PAOB
OF THE POPE'S SUCCESSION ... . 269
Sect. 1. Whether the Primacy descended to the Bishop of
Rome as such, by Succession from St. Peter. Neg.
Bellarmine's Twenty-eight Prerogatives of St. Peter ;
personal or false . . . . . .270
Application of this Section ...... 274
By three great Inferences : the Pope's ancient Primacy not
that of St. Peter : not Jure Divino : not to descend to
succeeding Popes ...... ib.
Sect. 2. Whether the Pope have Supremacy as Successor to
St. Peter. Neg. not Primate as such; Peter himself
not Supreme ; the Pope did not succeed him at all . 276
Sect. 3. Argument I. Peter assigned it to the Pope : an
swered ... .... 277
Sect. 4. Argument II. The Bishop of Rome succeeded
Peter, because Antioch did not : answered . .278
Sect. 5. Argument III. St. Peter died at Rome : answered ;
question de facto, not de fide .... 279
Sect. 6. Argument IV. From Councils, Popes, Fathers . 281
Sect. 7. Argument V. For prevention of Schism. St. Je
rome .282
Sect. 8. Argument VI. The Church committed to his care.
St. Chrysostom 283
Sect. 9. Argument VII. ' One Chair.' Optatus, Cyprian,
Ambrose, Acacius ...... 284
Sect. 10. The Conclusion touching the Fathers. Reasons
why we are not more particular about them. A Chal
lenge touching them. There cannot be a consent of the
Fathers for the Papacy, as is evident from the General
Councils. Reasons for it. Rome's Contradiction of Faith.
The Pope's Schism, Perjury, &c. . . . 289
The Sum of the whole matter. A Touch of another Treatise.
The material Cause of Separation . . . 294
THE CONTENTS. xxxi
THE POSTSCRIPT:
OBJECTIONS TOUCHING THE FIRST GENERAL COUN
CILS ; AND OUR ARGUMENTS FROM THEM
ANSWERED MORE FULLY.
SECTION I.
THE ARGUMENT FROM COUNCILS DRAWN UP. IT is CONCLUSIVE OF
THE FATHERS, AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH .
SECTION II.
OBJECTIONS TOUCHING THE COUNCIL OF NICE ANSWERED
SECTION III.
OBJECTIONS TOUCHING THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. SECOND
GENERAL ... 301
SECTION IV.
THE THIRD GENERAL COUNCIL, viz. THE EPHESINE .
SECTION V.
OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH GENERAL
COUNCILS. BINIUS HIS QUOTATIONS OF ANCIENT POPES CON
SIDERED .
01 q
Conclusion
[APPENDIX ON ENGLISH ROMANISTS
A SERIOUS ALARM TO ALL SORTS OF ENGLISHMEN AGAINST PO
PERY FROM SENSE AND CONSCIENCE, THEIR OATHS AND
319
THEIR INTEREST
The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy
THE INTRODUCTION.
THE DESIGN. THE CONTROVERSY CONTRACTED
INTO ONE POINT, viz. SCHISM.
HIKE Church of England hath been long possessed
both of herself and the true religion, and counts
it no necessary part of that religion to molest or
censure any other Church. Yet she cannot be quiet,
but is still vexed and clamoured with unwearied
outcries of Heresy and Schism from the Church of
Rome, provoking her defence.
The ball hath been tossed as well by cunning as
learned hands, ever since the Reformation ; and it is
complained, that by weak and impertinent allegations,
tedious altercations, unnecessary excursions, and much
sophistry, needlessly lengthening and obscuring the
controversy, it is in danger to be lost.
After so great and so long exercises of the best
champions on both sides, it is not to be expected,
that any great advance should be made on either :
yet how desirable is it, that at length the true dif
ference were clearly stated, and the arguments stripped
of their said cumber, and presented to us in their
proper evidence, and the controversy so reduced, that
the world might perceive where we are ; and doubtful
inquirers after truth and the safest religion, might
satisfy their consciences and fix their practice.
This is in some measure the ambition of the
present Essay. In order to it, we have observed that
1
2 INTRODUCTION.
the shop out of which all the arms, both offensive
and defensive, on both sides are fetched, is Schism ;
and the whole controversy is truly contracted into
that one point, which will appear by two things
1. By the State of the allowed nature of Schism.
2, By the Application of it so explained.
CHAPTER 1.
THE DEFINITION OF SCHISM.
SECTION I.
OF THE ACT OF SCHISM.
HPHAT we may lie open to their full charge, we
lay the* notion in as great a latitude, as, I think,
our adversaries themselves would have it.
Schism is a voluntary division of a Christian
Church, in its external Communion, without sufficient
cause.
(1) It is a Division ' ^i^oa-Ta^iai, divisions or Act.
rents among you. This division of the Church is
made either in the Church or from it. In it, as it is
a particular Church, which the Apostle blames in the Division in
Church 2 of Corinth ; though they came together, and ?
did not separate from the external Communion, but
divided in it and about it.
(2) Division is made also in the Church as Catholic Catholic.
or universal ; and some charge the Church or court of
Rome (as we shall observe hereafter) herewith, as the
cause of many deplorable rents and convulsions in
the bowels of it : and indeed in a true sense, all that
are guilty of dividing either in, or from a particular
Church (without just cause) are guilty of Schism in
the Catholic, as the aggregatum of all particular
Churches.
There is division as well from, as in the Church ;
1 [1 Cor. iii. 3.] 2 [\ Cor. xi. 20, 33.]
12
4 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
and this is either such as is improperly called sepa
ration, or properly, or more perfectly so.
(1) Separation improperly so called, we may
term negative ; which is rather a recusancy or a
denial of Communion, where it is either due, or only
claimed and not due, but was never actually given.
(2) It is properly so, where an actual separation
is made, and Communion broken or denied, where it
has wont to be paid.
(3) Or yet more perfectly, when those that thus
separate and withdraw their Communion from a
Church, join themselves in an opposite body, and
erect altar against altar.
SECTION II.
SUBJECT OF SCHISM.
Subject. rriHUS of the Act of Schism, Division. Let us
J- briefly consider the Subject of this division, which
is not a civil or an infidel society, but a Christian
Church. I do not express it a true Church (for that
is supposed) : for if it be a Christian Church it must
be true, otherwise it is not at all.
Some learned of our own side distinguish here
of the truth of the Church physically or metaphy
sically considered, or morally ; and acknowledge the
Roman Church to be a true Church, or truly a
Church, (as some would rather have it), but deny it
to be such morally : and plead for separation from it
only in a moral sense, or as it is not a true Church,
i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church, not as it is a
Church.
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 5
But finding this distinction to give offence, and
perhaps some advantage to our adversaries, at least
for the amusing and disturbing the method of dispu
tation, and being willing to reduce the difference as
much as I am able, I shall not insist upon these dis
tinctions.
I confess, pace tantorum, I see no danger in, but
rather a necessity of, granting the Church of Rome
to be a true Church even in a moral sense, largely
speaking as moral is distinguished from physical or
metaphysical : and the necessity of this concession
ariseth from the granting or allowing her to be a true
Church in any sense, or a Church of Christ.
For to say, that a Christian Church is not a true
Church morally, yet is so really (i. e. physically or me
taphysically), seems to imply that it is a Christian
Church, and it is not a Christian Church ; seeing all
the being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth
in a moral sense, as I conceive is not questioned by
either side.
And when we grant that the Church of Rome or
any other is a true Christian Church in any sense, we
do mean that she retains so much of Christian truth
in a moral sense, as is requisite to the truth and
being of a Christian Church.
Indeed the very essence of a Christian Church
seems to be of a moral nature, as is evident in all its
causes. Its efficient, the preaching of the gospel
under divine influence, is a moral cause ; the form,
living in true faith and religion, is moral ; its end and
all its formal actions, in profession and communion,
are of a moral nature; and though Christians as they
6 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
are men, are indeed natural beings, yet as they are
Christians and the matter of the Christian Church, and
more, as they are in a society, they fall properly under
a moral consideration.
But how can a Church be true and not true, and
both in a moral sense ? How can we own the Church
of Rome as a true Church, and yet leave her as a
false Church, and true and false be both taken
morally ? Very well : and our learned men intend no
other, though they speak it not in these terms.
For to be true and false, in the same (moral) sense,
doth not imply the being so, in the same respects.
Thus the Church of Rome may be granted to be a
true Christian Church, with respect to those funda
mentals retained in her faith and profession, wherein
the being and truth of such a Church consisteth ; and
yet be very false, and justly to be deserted for her
gross errors, in many other points, believed also and
professed by her : as a bill in chancery may be a true
bill for the substance of it and so admitted ; and yet
in many things falsely suggested, it may be very false,
and as to them be rejected.
i. Catholic. (1) The Church as the subject of Schism may be
further considered as Catholic ; that is, absolute,
formal, essential, and as it lies spread over all the
world, but united in one common faith. From this
Church the Donatists, and other ancient heretics, are
said to have separated.
^ ar particu " (2) As Particular, in a greater or lesser number
or part of the Catholic. Thus the modern separatists
forsaking the Church of England are said to be
Schismatics.
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 7
(3) In a complex and mixed sense; as the parti- 3. Mixed,
cular Roman Church, pretending also to be the Catholic
Church, calls herself Roman Catholic, and her particular
bishop the Universal Pastor. In which sense, the
Church of England is charged with separation from
the Catholic Church, for denying communion with the
particular Church of Rome.
SECTION III.
FIRST OBJECT OF SCHISM FAITH.
THE third point is the object, about and in which, External
Comtnu-
separation is made namely, external commu- nion.
nion ; in those three great means or bonds of it,
Faith, Worship, and Government under that notion,
as they are bonds of Communion.
The first is Faith or doctrine : and it must be Faith.
acknowledged, that to renounce the Church's Faith,
is a very great Schism : yet, here, we must admit two
exceptions. It must be the Church's Faith ; that is,
such doctrine as the Church hath defined as necessary
to be believed, if we speak of a particular Church :
for in other points, both authorities allow liberty.
Again, though the Faith be broken, there is not
Schism presently or necessarily, except the external
Communion be also, or thereby disturbed. Heretical
principles not declared, are Schism in principle, but
not in act ('Hast thou faith? have it to thyself"). It is
farther agreed, that we may and sometimes must differ
with a particular Church in doctrine, wherein she
i [Rom. xiv. 22.]
8 DEFINITION. [CHAP. 1.
departs from the Catholic Faith : but here we must
take care, not only of Schism, but damnation itself,
as ! Athanasius warns us.
Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfy
himself in this great question, What is Truth ? or the
true Catholic Faith ? To say presently, that it is the
doctrine of the Roman Church, is to beg a very great
question, that cannot easily be given. I should think
Athanasius is more in the right ; when he saith, ' This
is the Catholic Faith,' &c. In my opinion they must
stretch mightily that can believe, that the Catholic
Faith, without which no man can be saved and
therefore, which every man ought to understand
takes in all the doctrines of the council of Trent.
Till the contrary be made evident, I shall affirm
after many 2 great and learned men, that he that
believes the Scriptures in general, and as they are
interpreted by the Fathers of the primitive Church ;
the three known Creeds ; and the four first general
councils, and knows and declares himself prepared to
1 ["Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary
that he hold the Catholic Faith." Athanasian Creed.]
2 [e.g. Bishop Taylor, 'Letter I. to one seduced to the Church
of Rome ' : " For its doctrine, it is certain it (the Church of Eng
land) professes the belief of all that is written in the Old and New
Testament, all that which is in the three Creeds, the Apostolical, the
Nicene, and that of Athanasius, and whatsoever was decreed in the
four general councils, or in any other truly such ; and whatsoever
was condemned in these, our Church hath legally declared it to be
heresy. And upon these accounts, above four whole ages of the
Church went to heaven ; they baptized all their catechumens into
this faith, their hopes of heaven were upon this and a good life,
their saints and martyrs lived and died in these alone, they denied
communion to none that professed this faith." Works, Vol. xi.
p. 184, ed. 1822.]
CHAI-. I.] DEFINITION. 9
receive any further truth that he yet knows not,
when made appear to be so, from Reason, Scripture,
or just Tradition, cannot justly be charged with Schism
from the Catholic Faith.
Methinks, those that glory in the old religion
should be of this mind ; and indeed, in all reason,
they ought to be so, unless they can shew an older
and better means of knowing the Catholic Faith than
this. What is controverted about it, we shall find
hereafter in its due place.
In the mean time, give me leave to note, that
our more learned and moderate adversaries do acquit
such a man or Church, both from Heresy and Schism ;
and indeed come a great deal nearer to us, in putting
the issue of the controversy very fairly upon this
unquestionable point : " They who first separated
themselves from the primitive pure Church, and
brought in corruptions, in faith, practice, liturgy, and
use of Sacraments, may truly be said to have been
heretics, by departing from the pure faith ; and
schismatics, by dividing themselves from the external
communion of the true uncorrupted Church V
SECOND OBJECT OF SCHISM. WORSHIP.
A second band of external communion is Public 2 -
Worship.
Worship ; in which, separation from the Church is
notorious.
But here ' Public Worship ' must be understood,
only so far, as it is a bond of communion, and no
farther ; otherwise, there is no breach of communion,
1 Mr Knott, Infidelity Unmasked, c. vii, 112, p. 534.
10 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
though there be difference in worship, and conse
quently no schism.
This will appear more plainly, if we distinguish
of Worship in its essentials or substantials, and its
modes, circumstances, rites and ceremonies.
It is well argued by the bishop of Chalcedon 1 ,
that none may separate from the Catholic Church, (or
indeed from any particular) in the essentials or sub
stantial parts of Worship : for these are God's ordinary
means of conveying his grace for our salvation ; and
by these, the whole Church is knit together, as
Christ's visible Body for Divine Worship.
But what are these essentials of Worship "? Surely
nothing else but the Divine ordinances, whether
moral or positive, as abstracted from all particular
modes, not determined in the Word of God. Such
as Prayer, the reading the holy Canon, interpreting
the same, and the Sacraments : therefore, that Church
that worships God in these essentials of Worship,
cannot be charged, in this particular, with Schism, or
dividing from the Catholic Church.
And as for the modes and particular rites of Wor
ship, until one public Liturgy and Rubric be produced,
and proved to be the rule of the Catholic Church, if
not imposed by it, there is no such bond of union in
the circumstantial Worship in the Catholic Church ;
and consequently, no Schism in this respect.
Much less may one particular Church claim from
another par in parent non habet imperium exact
1 [Cf. Archbp. Bramhall's Replication : Works, Vol. n. p. 37,
Ed. 1842.]
CHAT. I.] DEFINITION. 11
communion in all rites and ceremonies, or for want
thereof, to cry out presently, Schism, Schism !
Indeed, our Roman adversaries do directly and
plainly assert, that about rites and ceremonies the
guilt of Schism is not concerned ; and that particular
Churches may differ from one another therein, with
out breach of communion.
Though, for a member of a particular Church to
forsake the communion of his own Church, in the
essentials of Worship, merely out of dislike of some
particular innocent rites, seems to deserve a greater
censure.
But the Roman recusants in England, have a
greater difficulty upon them, to excuse their total 1
separation from us, in the substantiate of our worship
at which they can pretend to take no offence ; and
wherein they held actual communion with us many
years together, at the beginning of queen Elizabeth's
reign against the law of cohabitation, observed in
the Scripture, where a city and a Church were com
mensurate ; contrary to the order (as one well ob
serves) which the ancient Church took for preserving
unity, and excluding Schism ; by no means suffering
such disobedience or division of the members of any
national Church, where that Church did not divide
itself from the Catholic. And lastly, contrary to the
common right of government, both of our civil and
ecclesiastical rulers, and the conscience of laws, both
of Church and State.
But their pretence is, obedience to the Pope ;
which leads us to consider the third great bond of
communion Government.
f 1 See Appendix A.]
12 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
THIRD OBJECT [OF SCHISM]. GOVERNMENT.
Govern- Thirdly, the last bond of ecclesiastical external
communion is that of Government ; that is, so far
as it is lawful in itself, and exerted in its Public
Laws.
This government can have no influence from one
national Church to another, as such ; because so far
they are equal par in parem but must be yielded
by all members of particular Churches, whether
national, provincial, or truly patriarchal, to their
proper governors in all lawful things, juridically re
quired ; otherwise, the guilt of Schism is contracted.
But for the government of the Catholic, we cannot
find it wholly in any one particular Church, without
gross usurpation ; as is the plain sense of the ancient
Church. Indeed, it is partly found in every Church :
it was at first diffused by our Universal Pastor and
common Lord into the hands of all the Apostles * ;
and, for ought hath yet appeared, still lies abroad
among all the pastors and bishops of particular
Churches, under the power, protection, and assistance
of civil authority except when they are collected by
just power and legal rules into synods or councils,
whether provincial, national, or general. Here, in
deed, rests the weight of the controversy; but, I
doubt not, it will at last be found to make its way
against all contradiction from our adversaries.
In the mean time we do conclude, while AVC pro
fess and yield all due obedience to our proper pastors,
1 [See our Lord's language addressed to all the apostles, collect
ively and individually, John xiv. 16; xvii. 13; xx. 21 23; Matt,
xxviii. 1820.]
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. Hi
bishops and governors, when there are no councils
sitting ; and to all free councils, wherein we are con
cerned, lawfully convened ; we cannot be justly charged
with Schism from the government of the Catholic
Church : though we stiffly deny obedience to a
foreign jurisdiction, and will not rebel against the
government that God hath placed immediately over
us.
This fair respect the Church of England holds to
the Communion both of the Catholic and all particular
Churches, both in Doctrine, Worship and Govern
ment : and the main exception against her is, that
she denies obedience to a pretended power in the see
of Rome ; a power not known, as now claimed, to the
ancient Church ; a power, when once foreseen, warned
against as antichristian by a pope l himself ; and when
usurped, condemned by a General Council 2 : and
lastly, such a power as those that claim it, are not
agreed about among themselves 3 .
But the charge of Schism falls after another sort,
upon our Roman adversaries ; who have disturbed
the Universal, and all particular Churches by ma
nifest violation of all the three bonds of external
Communion :
The Doctrine and Faith by adding to the Canon
of the Scripture, Apocryphal books ; by adding to
the revealed will of God, groundless Traditions ; by
1 [Infra, c. vi. 7.] 2 [Infra, c. xix. 7.]
3 [All their theologians maintain that communion with the papal
see is necessary, in order to union with the Church : yet the Galli-
can or Cisalpine party deny the pope's infallibility, and the whole
of that power which they call temporal.]
14 DEFINITION. [CrrAi-. I.
making new Creeds without the consent of the
present, and against the doctrine and practice of the
ancient Churches.
And as for Worship how have they not cor
rupted it ? by subtraction, taking away one essential
part of a divine ordinance, the Cup from the Laity,
&c. ; by additions infinite to the material and cere
monial parts of Worship ; and by horrid alterations
of the pure and primitive Worship, to childish super
stitions, and some say, dangerous idolatry.
Lastly, as to Government they have plainly sepa
rated themselves both from the ancient and present
Catholic Church, and all other particular Churches ;
by usurping a dominion, condemned by the ancient,
and that cannot be owned, without betraying the
liberty of the present Church ; by exerting this usur
pation in unlawful and unreasonable conditions of
communion ; and as it is said, by excommunicating
for non-obedience to these impositions, not only the
Church of England, but three parts of the Christian
world.
The proof, on both sides, we are to expect in due
place.
SECTION IV.
THE CONDITIONS OF SCHISM. CAUSELESS-
VOLUNTARY.
Condition fourth and last thing considerable in the
J- definition, is the condition, which adds the guilt
and formality of Schism to separation which is two
fold ; it must be causeless and voluntary.
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 15
(1) It must be voluntary separation, or denial of Voluntary.
communion. But of this, I shall say nothing ; a
greater man received a check from his Romish adver
saries for the proof of it, saying, ' Who knows not
that every sin is voluntary ? l '
(2) It must be causeless, or as it is usually ex- Causeless.
pressed, without sufficient cause. It is a rule generally
allowed, that the cause makes the Schism i. e. if the
Church give cause of separation, there is the Schism ;
if not, the cause of Schism is in the separatist ; and
consequently, where the cause is found, there the
charge of schism resteth.
I know, it is said, that there cannot be sufficient
cause of separation from the true Church ; and there
fore this condition is needless : but they ever mean
by the true Church, the Catholic Church.
It is granted, the Catholic Church cannot be sup
posed to give such cause ; she being the ordinary
2 pillar of Truth, wherein the 3 means of salvation can
be only found ; therefore we rarely meet with any
such condition, in the definitions of Schism, given by
the Fathers of the ancient Church ; because they had
to deal with Schisms of that kind, that separated
from the whole Church.
But hence to infer that we cannot have just cause
to separate from the Church of Rome, will be found
bad logic.
1 S. W. [i. e. William Sergeant, whose exceptions to Bram-
hall's 'Just Vindication' are answered by the archbishop in an
Appendix to his 'Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon.' He also
assailed Dr Hammond, who replied in 'An Answer to Schism Dis
armed'.]
2 [1 Tim. iii. 15.] 3 [Acts 5i. 47.]
16 DEFINITION. [On.\i> I.
However, if we could grant this condition to be
needless, it cannot be denied to be true ; and the law
fulness of separation for just cause is an eternal
verity ; and if the cause be supposed just cannot be
said to be unjust, seeing there cannot be supposed a
sufficient cause of sin ; the act is justified while it is
condemned.
Besides it is not questioned by our adversaries,
but there may be sufficient cause of separation from
a particular Church : then if at last we find, that the
Church of Rome is no more, there is more than
reason to admit this condition in the present con
troversy.
But the cause must not be pretended to effect,
beyond its influence or sufficiency ; therefore none
may be allowed to deny communion with a Church
farther than he hath cause ; for beyond its activity,
that which is said to be a cause is no cause.
Hence we admit the distinction of partial and
total separation, and that known rule, that we may
not totally separate from a true Church, and only so
far as we cannot communicate without sin.
The reason is evident, because the truth and
very being of a Christian Church implieth something
wherein every Christian Church, in the very foundation
and being of it, hath an agreement both of union
and communion.
Far be it from us, therefore, to deny all kind of
communion with any Christian Church ; yea we frankly
and openly declare, that we still retain communion,
out of fraternal charity, with the Church of Rome, so
far as she is a true Church ; only protesting against
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 17
her usurpations, .and reforming ourselves from those
corruptions of Faith and Worship, of which Rome is
too fond, and consequently the more guilty.
SECTION V.
THE APPLICATION OF SCHISM. NOT TO OUR
CHURCH.
|~F this definition of Schism be not applicable to the
-L Church of England, she is unjustly charged with
the guilt of Schism. If the Church of England doth
not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholic Church,
or any particular Church, either by separation from,
or denying communion with it, much less by setting
another altar against it without sufficient cause, then
the definition of Schism is not applicable to the
Church of England.
But she hath not thus divided, whether we respect
the act or the cause.
With respect to the act, viz. Division we argue, I.
if the Church of England be the same for substance
since the Reformation, that it was before, then by the
Reformation we have made no such division : for we
have divided from no other Church further than we
have from our own, as it was before the Reformation,
(as our adversaries grant) ; and therefore if we are
now the same Church as to substance that we were
before, we hold the same communion, for substance
or essentials, with every other Church now, that we
did before.
But, for substance, we have the same Faith, the
2
1 8 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
same Worship, the same Government now, that we
had before the Reformation, and indeed from our first
conversion to Christianity.
Indeed, the modern Romanists have made new
essentials in the Christian Religion, and determine
their additions to be such : but so weeds are of the
essence of a garden, and botches of the essence of a
man.
We have the same Creed to a word, and in the
same sense, by which all the primitive Fathers were
saved ; which they held to be so sufficient, that in a
General 1 Council, they did forbid all persons (under
pain of deposition to bishops and clerks, and anathe
matization to lay-men) to compose or obtrude upon
any persons converted from Paganism or Judaism
[another confession of Faith].
We retain the same Sacraments and discipline ;
we derive our holy Orders by lineal succession from
them. " It is not we who have forsaken the essence
of the modern Roman Church by subtraction (or
rather reformation), but they of the Church of Rome
who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Roman
Church by additions," as a learned man observes 2 .
The plain truth is this, the Church of Rome hath
had long and much reverence in the Church of Eng
land ; and thereby we were by little and little drawn
1 Concil. Ephes. Act. vi. [apud Labb. Concil. Tom. m. 689, A :
Toiis 8f ToX/itoj/raf rj crvvridevm TTICTTLV erepav, TIJOVV 7TpoKop.tfiv, ff
7rpo(r(p(pfiv TOLS edfXovcriv (TTicrTpefpfiv (Is enlyvaxriv rfjs d\rj0fias, rj (f-
tX\rjvicrfjLOi>, 77 e' Iov8a'icrp.ov, rj e' atpeVecos olaa-BrjTTOTOVv' TOVTOVS et p.tv
fifV fTTifTKOTTOl T) K\r)plKO\, dXXoTplOVS fLVdl TOVS fTriCTKOTTOVS TT)S fTTKTKO-
nijs, Kal TOVS K\rjptKovs Tov K\ijpov- fl 8e XoiVcoi fi(v, dvadffjLO.Tifaa'dai.]
2 [Bramhall, Replication to the Bp. of Chalcedon, Vol. n. p. 39.]
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 19
along with her into many gross errors and superstitions
both in Faith and Worship, and at last had almost
lost our liberty in point of Government. But that
Church refusing to reform, and proceeding still fur
ther to usurp upon us, we threw off the usurpation
first, and afterwards very deliberately reformed our
selves from all the corruptions that had been growing
upon us, and had almost overgrown both our Faith
and Worship. If this be to divide the Church, we
are indeed guilty not else.
But we had ' no power ' to reform ourselves : here
indeed is the main hinge of the controversy. But
we have some l concessions from our worst and fiercest
adversaries, that a national Church hath power of
herself to reform abuses in lesser matters, provided
she alter nothing in the Faith and Sacraments without
the Pope : and we have declared before, that we have
made no alteration in the essentials of Religion.
But ' we brake ourselves off from the papal autho
rity, and divided ourselves from our lawful governors.'
It is confessed the papal authority we do renounce,
but not as a lawful power, but a tyrannical usurpa
tion : and if that be proved, where is our Schism ?
But this reminds us of the second thing in the n -
. The cause.
definition of Schism, the Cause : for what interpreta
tion soever be put upon the action, whether reforma
tion or division and separation, it is not material, if it
be found we had sufficient cause; and no doubt we
had, if we had reason from the lapsed state and
nature of our corruptions to reform ; and if we had
1 [Cf. Bossuet, Defensio Decl. Cleri. Galilean, Lib. in. c. 2.]
22
20 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
sufficient authority without the Pope to reform our
selves. But we had both, as will be evident at last.
Both these we undertake for satisfaction to the
Catholic Church ; but in defence of our own Church
against the charge of Schism by and from the Church
of Rome, one of them, yea, either of them is sufficient.
For if the pretended authority of the Church of
Rome over the Church of England be ill grounded,
how can our actions fall under their censure ? Espe
cially seeing the great and almost only matter of their
censure is plainly our disobedience to that ill ground
ed authority.
Again, however their claim and title stand or fall,
if we have or had cause to deny that communion
which the Church of Rome requires, though they have
power to accuse us, our cause being good will acquit
us from the guilt, and consequently the charge, of
Schism.
Here then we must join issue : we deny the pre
tended power of the Church of Rome in England,
and plead the justness of our own Reformation in all
the particulars of it.
SECTION VI.
THE CHARGE AS LAID BY THE ROMANISTS.
TllHIS will the better appear by the indictment of
-*- Schism drawn up against us by our adversaries.
I shall receive it as it is expressed by one of the
sharpest pens, and in the fullest and closest manner
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 21
I have met with, viz. Cardinal Perron against Arch
bishop Laud, thus 1
" Protestants have made this rent or schism by
their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous
doctrines, contrary to the faith of Roman or Catholic
Church; by their rejecting the authority of their
lawful ecclesiastical superiors, both immediate and
mediate ; by aggregating themselves into a separate
body or company of pretended Christians, indepen
dent of any pastors at all, that were in lawful and
quiet possession of jurisdiction over them; by making
themselves pastors and teachers of others, and admi
nistering Sacraments without authority given them
by any that were lawfully impowered to give it; by
instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in
matters of Religion, contrary to those anciently re
ceived throughout all Christendom ; by violently ex
cluding and dispossessing other prelates of and from
their respective sees, cures, and benefices ; and in
truding themselves into their places, in every nation
where they could get footing." A foul charge indeed,
and the fouler because in many things false. How
ever, at present we have reason only to observe the
foundation of all lies in our disobedience and denying
communion with the Church of Rome ; all the rest
either concerns the grounds, or manner, or conse
quences of that.
Therefore, if it appear at last that the Church of
1 [The Editor has not been able to find any treatise correspond
ing to this description. The Rejoinder of Du Perron to King;
James's Reply (CEuvres dn Cardinal du Perron, Tome n. a Paris,
1622) abounds in charges substantially the same.]
22 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
England is independent on the Church of Rome, and
oweth her no such obedience as she requires, the
charge of Schism removes from us and recoils upon
the Church or court of Rome, from her unjust usur
pations and impositions ; and that with the aggrava
tion of sedition too in all such, whether prelates or
priests, as then refused to acknowledge and obey the
just power and laws of this land, or that continue in
the same disobedience at this day.
SECTION VII.
THE CHARGE OF SCHISM RETORTED UPON THE
ROMANISTS. THE CONTROVERSY TO
TWO POINTS.
IT is well noted by a learned man, that while the
papal authority is under contest, " the question is
not barely this, Whether the Church of England be
schismatical or no ? for a Romanist may cheaply
debate that and keep himself safe, whatsoever be
comes of the umpirage but indifferently and equally,
whether we, or the Romanist be thus guilty, or which
is the schismatic that lies under all those severe cen
sures of the Scriptures and Fathers 1 ," the Church of
England, or her revolters and the court of Rome.
Till they have better answered to the indictment
than yet they have done, we do and shall lay the
most horrid Schism at the door of the Church or
court of Rome ; for that they have voluntarily divided
the Catholic Church, both in Faith, Worship, and Go-
1 Dr Hammond [Answer to Schism Disarmed, chap. iii. s. i. :
Works, Vol. ii. p. 67].
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 23
vernment, by their innovations ; and excommunicated
and damned not only the Church of England, but (as
some account) three parts of the Christian Church,
most uncharitably and without all authority or just
cause, to the scandal of the whole world.
But we shall lay the charge more particularly, as
it is drawn up by Archbishop Bramhall 1 . "The
Church of Home," saith he, " or rather the Pope and
the court of Rome, are causally guilty, both of this
Schism, and almost all other Schisms in the Church.
First, by seeking to a higher place and power in the
body ecclesiastical than of right is due unto them.
Secondly, by separating, both by their doctrines and
censures, three parts of the Christian world from their
Communion, and as much as in them lies, from the
Communion of Christ. Thirdly, by rebelling against
General Councils. Lastly, by breaking or taking away
all the lines of apostolical succession except their own;"
and appropriating all original jurisdiction to them
selves. And that which draws sedition and rebellion,
as the great aggravation of their Schism, they chal
lenge a temporal power over princes, either directly
or indirectly.
Thus their charge against us is disobedience ; our
charge against them is usurpation and abuse of power.
If we owe no such obedience, or if we have cause not
to obey, we are acquitted. If the Pope have both
power and reason of his side, we are guilty. If he
fail in either, the whole weight of Schism, with all its
dreadful consequences, remains upon him or the court
of Rome.
* [Just Vindication, chap. viii. ; Works, Vol. i. p. 246; cd. 1842.]
24 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
THE CONCLUSION.
THUS we see the controversy is broken into two
great points :
(1) Touching the Papal Authority in England.
(2) Touching the cause of our denying Commu
nion, in some things, with the Church of Rome, re
quired by that authority 1 .
Each of these I design to be the matter of a dis
tinct treatise.
The sum -phis first book therefore is to try the title betwixt
of this first
treatise, ^he Pope and the Church of England : wherein we
shall endeavour impartially to examine all the pleas
and evidences, produced and urged by Romanists on
their master's behalf, and shew how they are answered.
And where there appears greatest weight and stress
of argument, we shall be sure to give the greatest
diligence ; omitting nothing but unconcluding imper-
tinencies, and handling nothing lightly but colours
and shadows that will bear no other.
Now to our work.
1 [This second design of the author does not appear to have
been executed. See the list of his works in the ' Introductory
Notice.']
CHAPTER II.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE PAPAL AUTHORITY
IN ENGLAND. FIVE ARGUMENTS PROPOSED,
AND BRIEFLY REFLECTED ON.
THIS is their Goliah, and indeed their whole army :
if we rout them here, the day is our own ; and
we shall find nothing more to oppose us, but skir
mishes of wit, or (when they are at their wits' end)
fraud and force, as I am troubled to observe, their
use hath been.
For if the see of Rome hath no just elaim or title
to govern us, we cannot be obliged to obey it : and
consequently these two things stand evident in the
light of the whole world. We are no schismatics,
though we deny obedience to the see of Rome, see
ing it cannot justly challenge it. Secondly, though
we were so, yet the see of Rome hath no power to
censure us, that hath no power to govern us. And
hereafter we shall have occasion further to conclude,
that the papal authority that hath nothing to do with
the English Church, and yet rigorously exacts our
obedience, and censures us for our disobedience is
highly guilty, both of ambition in its unjust claim, and
of tyranny in unjust execution of an usurped power,
as well in her commands as censures : which is cer
tainly Schism, and aliqidd amjMus.
They of the Church of Rome do therefore mightily
bestir themselves to make good their claim ; without
26 PAPAL AUTHORITY. [CHAP. II.
which they know, they can never hope either to g % ain
us, or secure themselves.
I find five several titles pretended, though me-
thinks the power of that Church should be built but
upon one Rock.
JerSon" * Tne PP e being the means of our first con
version (as they say) did thereby acquire a right for
himself and successors, to govern this Church.
2. Patri- II. England belongs to the Western Patriarchate ;
and the Pope is the Patriarch of the West (as they
would have it).
:$. Pre- HI. Others found his riffht in Prescription and
scnption.
long continued possession before the Reformation.
4. Infaili- IV. Others flee much higher, and derive this
power of Government from the infallibility of the
Governor ; and indeed who would not be led by an
unerring guide ?
Succes- V. But their strong hold, to which at last resort
is still made, is the Pope's universal Pastorship, as
successor to St Peter and supreme Governor not of
Rome and England only, but of the whole Christian
world.
Before we enter upon trial of these severally, we
shall briefly note, that where there are many titles
pretended, right is justly suspected, especially if the
pretences be inconsistent,
(1) Now, how can the Pope, as the Western Pa
triarch, or as our first Converter, pretend to be our
Governor ; and yet at the same time pretend himself
to be universal Bishop ? These some of our subtlest
adversaries know to imply a contradiction, and to de
stroy one another.
sion.
CHAP. II.] PAPAL AUTHORITY. 27
(2) At first sight therefore, there is a necessity
on those that assert the universal Pastorship, to waive
the arguments, either from the right of conversion, or
the Western Patriarchate : or if any of them will be
so bold as to insist on these, he may not think the
chair of St Peter shall be his sanctuary at a dead
lift.
(3) Also for Possession, what need that be pleaded,
if the right be evident ? Possession of a part if the
right be universal ; unless by England the Pope took
livery and seizin for the whole world. Besides, if this
be a good plea, it is as good for us, we have it and
have had it time out of mind ; if ours have not been
quiet, so neither was theirs before the Reformation.
(4) For Infallibility that is but a qualification,
no commission : fitness sure gives no authority ; nor
desert a title, and that by their own law. Otherwise
they must acknowledge the Bishops of our Church,
that are known to be as learned and holy as theirs,
are as good and lawful Bishops, as any the Church of
Rome hath.
Thus we see where the burthen will rest at last ;
and that the Romanists are forced into one only hold.
One great thing concerns them to make sure, or all
is lost. The whole controversy is tied to St Peter's
chair ; the supremacy of the Pope must be maintained,
or the Roman and Catholic are severed, as much as
the Church of England and the Church of Rome ; and
a great breach is made indeed, but we are not found
the schismatics.
But this is beside my task. Lest we should seem
to endeavour an escape at any breach, all the said
28
PAPAL AUTHORITY.
[CHAP. II.
five pleas of the Romanists shall be particularly exa
mined, and the main arguments and answers on both
sides faithfully, and exactly as I can, produced ; and
where the controversy sticks, and how it stands at
this day, noted ; as before we promised.
CHAPTER HI.
OF THE POPE'S CLAIM TO ENGLAND FROM OUR
CONVERSION ELEUTHERIUS GREGORY.
argument is not pressed with much confidence
J in print, though with very much in discourse, to
my own knowledge. Perhaps it is rather popular and
plausible than invincible.
Besides, it stands in bar against the right of St
Peter, which they say was good, near six hundred
years before ; and extends to very many Churches,
that received grace neither by the means of St Peter
or his pretender successor : except they plead a right
to the whole Church first, and to a part afterwards ;
or one kind of right to the whole, and another to a
part.
The truth is, if any learned Romanist shall insist
on this argument in earnest, he is strongly suspected,
either to deny or question the right of St Peter's
successor, as universal Pastor 1 .
But we leave these advantages, to give the argu
ment its full liberty ; and we shall soon see either its
arms or its heels.
The argument must run thus : If the Bishop of
Rome ivas the means of the English Church's conversion,
1 [The plea of conversion has been revived in our own time by
writers in the ' Dublin Review.' For a refutation of their argu
ments see Mr Palmer's ' Apostolical Jurisdiction and Succession of
the Episcopacy in the British Churches,' sect, xiii.]
30 CONVERSION. [CHAP. III.
then the English Church oweth obedience to him and his
successors.
We deny both propositions the minor, that the
Pope was the means of our first conversion ; and the
consequence of the major, that if he had been so, it
would not follow that we now owe obedience to that
see.
For the minor, Bishop Jewel knocked it down
so perfectly at first, it was never able to stand since :
he saith, " It is certain the Church * of Britain now
called England, received not first the faith from
Home 2 ."
The Romanist's proof is his bare assertion, ' that
Eleutherius the Pope was the first Apostle of the
Britains, and preached the Faith here by Damianus and
Fugatius within little more than one hundred years
after Christ's death.' Bishop Jewel answers 3 , 'that king
1 [In a side-note, Fullwood makes the following addition : " We
were converted nine years before Rome. Bai-on. ad an. 35, n. 5 et
marg. et ad an. 39, n. 23 : et Suarez, adv. Angl. Sect. Error. Lib. i.
c. i." Both these writers ascribe the foundation of the British Church
to Joseph of Arimathsea ; and Baronius places the event in the year
35. The Church of Rome, according to the same authority, was
founded A.D. 45. A passage in the History of Gildas (c. vi. apud
Scriptores xv.) asserts that the Gospel was introduced into Britain
" tempore summo Tiberii Csesaris."]
2 [Defence of the Apology, p. 12 : ed. 1570.]
3 [Ibid. The various accounts respecting the conversion of
Britain may be seen in Spelman, Concil. Tom. i. 'Apparatus.'
Parker, Camden, Ussher, Stillingfleet, Cave, and Godwin ascribe
the foundation of the British Church to St Paul, in the interval
between his first and second imprisonment. Mr Williams (' Eccle
siastical Antiquities of the Cymry,' pp. 51, et seqq.) has recently ad
vocated the view that Christianity was introduced, about A.D. 58, by
Bran, father of Caradog (or Caractacus), who was detained at Rome
seven years as hostage for his son ]
CHAP. III.] CONVERSION. 31
Lucius was baptized well near one hundred and fifty-
years before the Emperor Constantine ; and the same
Constantine, the first christened emperor, was born in
this island : and the Faith had been planted here long-
before, either by Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon
Zelotes, or the Greeks, or some others ;' which is
plain, because the king, being Christian before, re
quested Pope Eleutherius to send hither those per
sons, Damianus and Fugatius, to reform the bishops
and clergy which were here before ; and to put things
into better order 1 .
They also urged, that 'as Pope Eleutherius in
Britain, so Saint Gregory, in England, first planted
the Faith by Austin.'
But Bishop Jewel at first dashed this argument - D - 21 -
out of countenance ; plainly proving out of Tertullian,
Origen, Athanasius, Constantinus the emperor, Chry-
sostom, Theodoret, that the Faith was planted in
England long before Austin's coming hither 2 .
Some would reply, that ' the Faith was utterly
rooted out again upon the invasion of heathen
English.' It was not so, saith he, "for Beda saith
the queen of England was then christened ; and that
1 [There is now extant no copy of the letter which king Lucius
is said to have sent to Eleutherius. Bede's mention of the circum
stance is as follows : " Misit ad eum Lucius Brittaniarum rex epi-
stolam, obsecrans ut per ejus mandatum Christianus efficeretur."
Hist. Eccl. Lib. i. c. iv. According to Bp Pearson (Minor Theolo
gical works, Vol. n. p. 409) this notice is transcribed from the
' Liber Pontificatis.' The whole transaction is much amplified by
Matthew of Westminster, ad an. 185 On the reply attributed to
Eleutherius, see the ' Animadversiones' in Spelman, Concil. Tom. i.
pp. 35, 36.]
2 See his Defence of his Apology, p. 13.
.D. 212.
n. 334.
D. 360.
.D. 400.
.n. 37.
32 CONVERSION. [CITAI-. III.
there were then in this realm seven bishops, and one
archbishop, with other more great learned Christian
men 1 ." And Galfridus saith, "There were then in
England seven bishoprics, and one archbishopric,
possessed with very many godly prelates, and many
abbeys in which the Lord's flock held the right
religion 2 ."
Yet we gratefully acknowledge that Saint Gre
gory was a special instrument of God for the further
spreading and establishing the Gospel in England ;
and that both Eleutherius and this Gregory seem to
have been very good men, and great examples both
of piety and charity to all their successors in that
see ; and indeed of a truly apostolical spirit and care,
though not of authority: but if all history deceive us
not, that Austin the monk was far enough from being
Saint Augustine.
The Con- But what if it had been otherwise, and we were
sequence.
indeed first converted by the means of these popes ;
will it therefore follow, that we ought ever to be sub
ject to the papacy ? This is certainly a non-sequitur,
only fit to be imposed upon easy and prepared under
standings : it can never bear the stress and brunt of
a severe disputation ; and indeed the Roman adver
saries do more than seem to acknowledge as much.
However, the great Archbishop and Primate of
Armagh hath slurred that silly consequence with such
arguments as find no answer. I refer the reader, if
need be, to his Just Vindication 3 , pp. 131, 132. Where
1 [Defence of the Apology, p. 14.]
2 [Lib. viii. c. 4, quoted by Bp Jesvel. ubi supra.]
:i [Vol. r. p. 2fl<i: od. 1842.]
CHAP. III.] CONVERSION. 33
he hath proved beyond dispute that Conversion gives
no title of jurisdiction ; and more especially to the
prejudice of a former owner dispossessed by violence,
or to the subjecting of a free nation to a foreign
prelate without or beyond their own consent.
Besides, in more probability, the Britains were
first converted by the Eastern 1 Church (as appeared
by our ancient customs) ; yet never were subject to
any Eastern patriarch. And sundry of our English
and British Bishops have converted 2 foreign nations,
yet never pretended thence to any jurisdiction over
them.
Lastly, whatever title Saint Gregory might ac
quire by his deserts from us, [it] was merely personal,
and could not descend to his successors.
But no more of this, for fear of the scoffing
O
rebukes of such as S. W., who together with the
' Catholic Gentleman,' do plainly renounce this plea :
asking Doctor Hammond 3 with some shew of scorn,
'What Catholic author ever affirmed it' ? There is no
doubt though some other Romanists have insisted
upon this argument of Conversion some reason why
these should think fit to lay it aside ; and we have no
reason to keep it up, having otherwise work enough
upon our hands.
An end therefore of this first plea.
i
[Cf. Twysdcn's Historical Vindication, p. 9.]
2 [See Dr Grant's 'Missions to the Heathen,' pp. 109 111.]
3 [Hammond's Answer to ' Schism Disarmed,' chap. v. sect. i. ;
Works, Vol. ii. p. 102; ed. 1684.]
CHAPTER IV.
OF THE POPE'S SUPPOSED CLAIM AS
PATRIARCH.
point admits likewise of a quick dispatch,
J- by four propositions ; and the rather, for a reason
you will find in the close of our discourse upon the
last of them.
PROP. I.
Pope a The Pone was anciently reputed the Western
Patriarch.
Patriarch.
To this dignity he proceeded by degrees. The
Apostles left no rule for a foreign jurisdiction from
one nation to another : but, according to the 33rd
Canon of the Apostles (if they were indeed theirs),
' it behoved the Bishops of every nation to know him,
who is their first (or primate), and to esteem him as
their head 1 .'
The adventitious grandeur which the ancient
Patriarchs afterwards obtained, is judged to arise
three ways ; by the Canons of the Fathers, the edicts
of Princes, or ancient Custom.
Upon the last ground (viz. of Custom,) the Council
of Nice 2 settled the privileges of those three famous
1 [Al. Can. XXXV. Tous eirurtioirovs fKaa-rov (Bvovs flSevai %pr)
rbv fv avTois irp&Tov, Kai qye'ia-dai avrbv cos Kf(pa\^v, K. r. X. Apud
Coteler. Patres Apost. Tom. i. p. 442, ed. Antverp 1698.]
2 [Can. VI. Ta apxaia t6r) Kpardrat, ra tv AiyuTrrco /cat A^Svj? Kill
CHAP. IV.] WESTERN PATRIARCH. 35
patriarchal sees, Home, Alexandria, and Antioch,
saying, "Let ancient Customs prevail"; which cus
toms proceeded from the honour such Churches had,
as being- founded by the Apostles, if not rather from
the eminency of the cities : therefore the Council of
Chalcedon J gives this as a reason of the greatness of
the sees of Rome and Constantinople, ' because they
were the seats of the Emperors.'
PROP. II.
The Pope, as Patriarch, had but a limited Juris- Limited
jurisdic-
diction. tion.
(1) A Patriarchate, as such, is limited ; especially,
if the title restrain it to the West : for East, North,
and South, are not the West, in the same respect.
(2) It is further evident, from the first number of
Patriarchs ; for, if there were more than one of the
same dignity and jurisdiction, they must be therefore
limited : for a Patriarch, as such, could have no juris
diction over a Patriarch, as such ; for so they were
equal ; et par in parem non habet imperium.
(3) But indeed, the first time we hear of three,
and then of five Patriarchs at once, viz. of Rome, F >ve Patri-
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem ;
and that these had all their jurisdictions limited to
t, wore rbv 'AXet-avSpfias firio-Konov Trdincw TOVTUIV ex flv T 'l v
ft-ovcriav. eVeiS/} *cat r<5 eV 177 'Pw/*?/ eViCT/eoTTa) TOVTO crvvrjdes fcmv,
K. r. \. See Routh's Opuscula, Vol. i. p. 374, and note, p. 404.]
1 [Can. XXVIII. Ka* yap rw 6p6i>co rrjs TrpfcrftvTepas 'P<ap.r)s, 8iu T.I
/3acriXeveti> TTJV no\iv eKtivrjv ol Trarepey eiKorws aTroSeScoKCHri ra Trpta
ftfia' Ka\ T(f avriM crKonif Ktvov/j-evoi ol fKarbv TffVTi]<ovTa 6fo(fji\fcrTu-
TGI fjricTKOTroi, Ta icra Trpfarfielu anevftftav TU> rfjs vtas 'Pco/x^r dyt<u-
rara) 0pwa>, K.T.\. Apud Roilth. Opuscula, Vol. II. p. 69.]
3 _ o
3<; WESTKKN 1'ATUIAUCH. [HAI-. IV.
them, and no one of them had any thing like a
universal monarchy, is evident both from canons and
history, and also by this undeniable observation ; that
several parts of the world had their own primates
independent, and exempt from all these, in the height
of their power : as Africk at Carthage ; the rest of
Italy at Milan ; France at Aries, or Lyons ; Germany
at Vienna; and Britain also had the same privilege 1 .
(4) The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice
saith thus expressly : " Let ancient Customs prevail ;
according to which, let the Bishop of Alexandria have
power over them of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis ;
because this was likewise the Custom for the Bishop
of Rome ; and accordingly, in Antioch, and other
provinces, let the privileges be preserved to the
Churches 2 ."
The occasion of this Canon is said to be this 3 :
Meletius, a Bishop of Egypt, ordained Bishops and
others in Egypt, without the consent of the Bishop of
Alexandria. The case heard in the Council, they
pronounce such ordinations null, depose Meletius, and
by this Canon the more venerable because the first
in such cases confirm the ancient Customs of that,
and all other Churches.
Objection. The Romanists object, 'the Council did not assign
any limits to those jurisdictions.'
1 [Before the institution of Patriarchs all Metropolitans were
avTOKe(j)a\r>i. Some retained this independence for a long time,
admitting no earthly superiors except a General Council. That the
British Archbishop of Caerleon was in this number, is shewn by
Bingham, Antiquities, Book ir. c. xviii. s 2.]
2 [Vid. supra, p. 34, note 2.]
3 [See the particulars in Fleury, Histoire KcHos. Liv. xi. s. l. r >.]
CIIAI-. IV.] WESTERN PATRIARCH. 37
But it is fully answered, that the Council supposed Answer,
such limits, and proceed upon that supposition, to
allow of them, and to enjoin the observation of them ;
and that is so much the more than a present limita
tion, as it is a proof of the greater antiquity of such
limitation.
Sure Bellarmine was hard put to it, when the Objection.
words ' because the Roman Bishop hath so accus
tomed,' must be forced to speak against all sense
of words, and scope of the matter : thus, " that is,"
saith he, " the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed to
let the Alexandrian Bishop govern them 1 ."
The occasion of the Canon we had before ; the Answer.
words themselves are these, 'Evret^ /cat ry ev TTJ 'Pw/mt]
eTTiaKOTTM TOVTO ovvr]9e<i (JTIV. Who but Bellarmine
seeth not that TOVTO avvriOes imports a like Custom
in the Church of Rome, as the excellent and learned
Doctor Stillingfleet 2 observes ? The Bishop of Rome
had such jurisdiction over the Churches under him ;
and therefore ought the Bishop of Alexandria over
the Churches under him : upon this consideration the
Council concludes, that so it should be 3 .
1 [Dc Romano Pontifice, Lib. n. c. xiii. ; in Disputat. Tom. i. p.
165, G ; ed. Colon. 1628.]
2 [Stillingflect's Rational Account, Vol. n. p. 168; cd. Oxf.
1844.]
3 [The following extract will shew the view taken of this Canon
by Nilus, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in the fourteenth century :
Et 8f TIS K.aT(x<i>i> ra UVTOV Kal ras trepans TrapoiKias dbiKois o^)^aX/iois
6pa, TOVTOV OVK f(TTl fJir) KaT(i\V(lV TO. dp^aitt TOiV TTaTfpCOV f'0T). dXX' 6
Kavatv ov TOVTO ftoiiXfTai, tiXXa. Ta dpxaia, (pTjalv, e6r/ Kpartlnt. ov
fjitv aXXa, et fj.fv TCI K\ip.aTa TTJS yrjs fKacrTca rSav Ka6o\iKu>v eVitrKOTrcoi/
8iavfV(fir]fji:ei>a, a>pi(Tfj.eva>s ovdev virb rov TTJS 'Pco/j,r/s 0povoi> KctTeo-Trj,
aXXn p.6vov avTov TTJV dpx^v flXrjipfvat. e\(j(v n KCIVOIV, fiKos r\v Stjirov
38 WESTERN PATRIARCH. [CHAP. IV.
If it be replied, ' The Pope had limits as a Metro
politan, but not as Head of the Church ' ; this grants
the thing in present question ; that, as a Patriarch,
the Pope's jurisdiction was limited. What power he
had as Head of the Church, shall be examined in its
due place.
What power the Pope had anciently in confirm
ing, deposing and restoring Patriarchs, will hardly be
found so ancient as the Council of Ephesus ; and
indeed was challenged by him, not as a private
Patriarch, but as Head of the Church : and there
fore is to be considered under that head also.
PROP. III.
Britain r f/ )e ancient Patriarchate of Rome did not include
excluded.
Britain.
But, according to Ruffinus 1 , (a Roman, who lived
not long after the Council of Nice) it was limited to
the 'suburbicary' Cities ; i.e. a part of Italy, and their
islands, Sicily. Sardinia, and Corsica : much less did it
ever pretend to Britain, either by custom, canon, or
edict of any of our Princes.
Aoyi'fecr&u Tracrav TTJV oiKOVfj-evr/v irtr' avrov eiVat, Kal TOVS KadoXiKovs
flTKTKOTTOVS TUKflVOV 8lOlKfll> toOTTTfp T(l TOV K.U>V(TTaVTlVOVTv6\fa>S Ot VTT
avTov iepapxai. ei &' e/ceii/o fj.ev aTTfKXijpa>0Tj r<5 'Pw/nrjy, exetj/o 8e TO>
'A.\fav8pfias, TOVTO 8e rf/s K&VCrTavrtvov, ov fj.a\\6v ye o 'P(op,r}s VTT
eKflVOVS, ff fKflvOl U7TO TTJS 'Pa)/X^S, O(TU y( flS TOVTO Tf\f(TOV<rili. Do
Priinatu Papsc Rom. Lib. n. p. 38, ed. Salmas. Heidelberg. 1608.]
1 [Hist. Eccl. Lib. i. c. 6. His version of the Niccne Canon is as
follows : "Apud Alexandrian! et in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo
servetur, ut ille ^Egypti, hie suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitu-
dincm gei-at." That the suburbicary churches are correctly deter
mined in the text is proved by Bingham, Antiquities, Book xi. chap.
i. s. 9. Cf. also Floury, Hist. Eccles. Liv. xxxv. s. 19. j
CHAP. IV.] WESTERN PATRIARCH. 39
Consequently, we say, the papal power over us
was an after-encroachment and usurpation, and a
plain violation of the General Council of Ephesus.
Our argument is this : The General Council of
Ephesus declare, ' that no Bishop should occupy any
province, which before that Council, and from the
beginning had not been under the jurisdiction of
him or his predecessors ; and that if any Patriarch
usurped any jurisdiction over a free province, he
should quit it ; for so it pleased the holy Synod, that
every province should enjoy its ancient rites, pure
and inviolate 1 '.
But it is evident, the Bishop of Kome had no
power in Britain from the beginning ; nor yet before
that General Council ; nor for the first six hundred
years after Christ (as will appear when we speak of
the next claim, viz. possession).
Now, if the Pope had no patriarchal power in pope
Britain before the six hundredth year of Christ, he
could not well have any since ; for Pope Boniface 2 ,
three years after Saint Gregory's death, disclaimed
1 [Concil. Ephes. Act. vn. This decree was made at the petition
of Regius, bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, who complained of en
croachments on his own rights made by the patriarch of Antioch.
Vid. Concil. ed. Labb. Tom. m. 802.]
2 [i. e. Boniface III., who was ordained Bishop of Rome, A.D.
606. He assumed the title of ' Universal Bishop,' claiming thereby
universal jurisdiction. In this sense the title had been condemned
by Gregory the Great, as blasphemous and antichristian. Vid
Gregor. Magni Epist. Lib. vi. ep. xxx. Lib. iv. Indict, xiii. ep. xxxii.;
cd. Antvcrp. 1615. However, in the sense of a Bishop of the Uni
versal Church, the title ' (Ecumenical' was in use long before the
time of John of Constantinople. For instances of its application
to the Patriarch of that diocese, see Bingham, Book u. c. xvii.
s. 21.]
40 WESTERN PATRIARCH. [CHAP. IV.
this power, by assuring 1 an higher title : so that had
AVC been willing to admit him our Patriarch, contrary
to what Augustine found, time had been wanting to
settle his poAver, as such, in England.
From the whole, we conclude, either the Pope is
none of our Patriarch ; or if such, he stands guilty of
contempt of a General Council, and hath done so
many hundred years ; i. e. he is no Patriarch at all,
or a schismatical one.
PROP. IV.
Incon- To be a Patriarch and Universal Bishop, in the sense of
sistent with
Headofthe the Romanist, is inconsistent.
Church.
Therefore the Pope must let fall his claim as a
Patriarch, if he pretend to be Universal Bishop. Thus
the great Archbishop Bramhall reasons wisely and
strongly ; but S. W. gives no answer to it, only that
he argues " weakly and sillily V
The Lord Primate proves the inconsistency by
arguments not yet answered. The Patriarch (saith he)
" professeth human ", the Universal Pastor " chal-
lengeth Divine institution : the one hath a limited
jurisdiction over a certain province ; the other pre-
tendeth to an universal jurisdiction over the whole
world : the one is subject to the canons of the Fathers,
and a mere executor of them, and can do nothing-
cither against, or besides them ; the other challengeth
an absolute sovereignty above the canons, [besides the
canons, against the canons] to make them, to abro-
1 [A Reply to S. W. (i. c. William Sergeant's) Refutation :
Works, Vol. ii. pp. 332, 333.]
CHAP. IV.] WESTERN PATRIARCH. 41
gate them, to suspend their influence by a non-ob-
stante, at his own pleasure, when he will, where he
will, to whom he will 1 ."
Therefore the claim of this absolute power clis-
claimeth the limited ; and the donation and accept
ance of a limited power convinceth that there was no
such absolute power before : had the Pope been un
limited before, by Divine donation, who can imagine
that he would ever have taken yradum Simeonis in
this sense, by stooping so low to receive from the
hand of man the narrower dignity of a Patriarch '?
Besides, it is fully proved by Doctor Hammond, in Patriarchs
his book of Schism 2 , beyond all the little exceptions Ciril
of the Romanists (as more at large hereafter), that
the see of a Patriarch is disposable by the civil power :
and therefore, whatever power the Pope may be
thought to have had heretofore in Britain, is now
lawfully otherwise disposed of by the kings of Eng
land ; as well as evidently rejected by the usurpation
of an higher, and an higher kind of title, inconsistent
with it ; and justly forfeited many other ways, as will
appear hereafter.
But though our adversaries would seem to say
something in favour of this title, they dare not stand
to it ; as indeed it is not convenient they should, if
they would save their head whole. Therefore, after
much ado to very little purpose, S. "W. 3 concludes
against Doctor Hammond thus. " Besides," saith he,
1 [A Reply to S. W. (i.e. William Sergeant's) Refutation:
Works, Vol. n. p. 333.]
2 [Works, Vol. I. pp. 520, 521, cd. 1684.]
3 Schism Disarmed, p. 151, [cd. Paris. 1655.]
42 WESTERN PATRIARCH. [CHAP. IV.
" were all this granted, what is it to your or our pur
pose ? Since we accuse you not of Schism, for break
ing from the Pope's subjection, as a private Patri
arch, but as the chief Pastor and the Head of the
Church."
So there is an end of their Second Plea,
CHAPTER V.
THE THIRD PAPAL CLAIM, viz. PRESCRIPTION,
OR LONG POSSESSION. CASE STATED
THEIR PLEA OUR ANSWER IN
THREE PROPOSITIONS.
THE true state of the case here is this : It cannot C
stated.
be denied but the Church of England was heed
lessly and gradually drawn into communion with the
Roman Church in her additions, superinduced upon
the ancient faith and worship ; and likewise into some
degrees of subjection to Papal jurisdiction. And in
this condition we had continued for some considerable
time, before king Henry the Eighth ; and that bold
king (upon what motives is not here material) with
the consent of his three estates in Parliament, both
Houses of the Convocation, and both the Universities
of the land, threw off the Roman yoke, as a manifest
usurpation, and a very grievous oppression ; and re
covered the people and Church of England to their
ancient liberties of being governed by their own do
mestic rulers. Afterwards, in the reigns of Edward
the Sixth, and queen Elizabeth, and by their proper
authority, we reformed ourselves by throwing off the
Roman additions to our faith and worship.
Had we gone about a Reformation while we ac
knowledged subjection to the see of Rome, or indeed
before we had renounced it, there had been more co
lour to charge us with Schism and disobedience : but
now the proper question is, first whether the state of
44 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. V.
England did then justly reject the jurisdiction of the
Pope in England ; and only consequently, whether we
did afterwards lawfully reform without him. The
cause of our Reformation belongs to another argu
ment, which we shall meet hereafter 1 .
1>lcii - The Papal plea here is : the Pope's authority
was established here by long possession, and therefore
if nothing else could be pleaded for it, Prescription
w r as a good title : and therefore it was injurious and
schismatical, first to dispossess him, and then to go
about to reform without him.
Our answer is home and plain, in these three
Propositions.
Answer. (1) The Church of England was never actually un
der the Pope's jurisdiction, so absolutely as is pretended.
(2) The possession, which it had obtained here, was
not sufficient to create the Pope a good title.
(3) Or if it were, yet that title ceased when he lost
his possession.
1 [Sec above, p. 24, note 1.]
CHAPTER VI.
PROP. I.
The Papacy had no power here, for the first six hundred
years. St Augustine Dionoth.
HE first Proposition is this, That the Church of
England was not actually under the Papal jurisdic
tion so absolutely as is pretended ; that is, neither
primarily nor plenarily.
First, not primarily, in that we were free from the I. Not
Papal power for the first six hundred years.
This is confirmed beyond all exception, by the
entertainment Augustine found among the sturdy
Britains, when he came to obtrude that jurisdiction
upon them. Whence it is evident, that at that time,
which was near six hundred years after Christ, the
Pope had neither actual possession of government In Fact, or
over, nor of the belief of the Britains, that he ought
to have it.
The good Abbot of Bangor, when pressed to sub
mit to the Roman Bishop, answered 1 in the name of
the Britains : ' That he knew no obedience due to
him, whom they called the Pope, but the obedience
of love ; ' and adds those full peremptory exclusive
words, that ' under God, they were to be governed by
the Bishop of Caerleon.' Which the Lord Primate
Bramhall saith 2 . is 'a full demonstrative convincing
O
1 Vicl. Spelman, Concil. A. D. 601, [Tom. i. pp. 108, 109],
2 Just Vindication, p. 84 [Vol. i. pp. 162, 163; new edit.]
46 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
proof,' for the whole time, viz. the first six hundred
years.
But it is added, " That which follows strikes the
question dead, Augustine, St Gregory's legate, pro
posing three things to the Britains :
First, That they should submit to the Roman
Bishop. Secondly, that they should conform to the
customs of the Roman province. And lastly, that they
should join with him in preaching to the Saxons'"
Hereupon, the British clergy assembled themselves
together, Bishops and Priests, in two several synods
one after another ; and upon mature deliberation,
they rejected all his propositions synodically, and re
fused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do
with him on those terms : insomuch as Augustine
was necessitated to return over sea to obtain his own
consecration ; and after his return hither, to conse
crate the Saxon Bishops alone, without the assistance
of any other Bishop. They refused indeed to their
own cost : twelve hundred innocent monks of Bangor
shortly after lost their lives for it. The foundation
of the Papacy here was thus laid in blood a .
Objection. It is objected, that the story of the Abbot of Ban
gor is taken by Sir H. Spelman out of an old Welsh
author of suspected credit ; but all objections to that
1 [Bramhall, ubi supra; cf. Bed. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 11. c. 2.]
2 [Vid. Bod. Hist. Eccl. Lib. n. c. 2 ; where he relates the cir
cumstances connected with the massacre. A clause is added to the
effect that Augustine was not then living : but from its omission in
the Anglo-Saxon version some have supposed it an interpolation.
Turner (Hist, of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. i. p. 330) places the mas
sacre in A.D. 607 or 612, and the death of Augustine in 605. Cf.
Soames's Anglo-Saxon Church, pp. 58, 59. J
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 47
purpose are removed by ray Lord Primate, and Dr
Hammond 1 . Besides, we have other authority suffi
cient for it, and beyond contradiction.
The story in Bede 2 himself, as vouched by H. T.
himself against Dr Hammond, puts it beyond all
doubt, that the Abbot and Monks opposed Austin,
and would not subject themselves to the Pope of
Rome, but referred themselves only to their own
governors, which is also the general result of other
authors' account of this matter ; and if the matter of
fact be established, it is enough to disprove the
Pope's possession at that time : whether they did
well or ill is not now considered.
Balseus, speaking of that convention 3 , saith, ' Dio-
noth disputed against the authority of Rome; and
defended stoutly (fortiter) the jurisdiction of St
David's in the affairs of his own Churches.'
The same is observed by Geoffrey of Monmouth,
and Sigebert and others 4 , for which Dr Hammond
refers us to the Collection of the Anglican Councils 5 ,
and Mr Wheloc's Notes on the Saxon Bede 6 .
And indeed the author of the Appendix 7 written
on purpose to weaken this great instance, confesseth
1 [Bramhall's 'Reply to S. W.'s Refutation/ Works, Vol. H.
pp. 302, et seqq. 'Schism Guarded,' Vol. n. pp. 504, et seqq.
Hammond's 'Account of H. T. [i.e. Henry Turbervill] his Appendix
to his Manual of Controversies, concerning the Abbot of Banger's
Answer to Augustine ;' Works, Vol. n. pp. 55 60.]
2 Hist. Eccl. Lib. n. c. 2.
3 In Dinoth. [Cent. i. 70].
4 [See Hammond's 'Account of H. T.'s Appendix,' &c. : Works,
Vol. n. p. 58.]
5 [Cf. Spelman, Tom. i. p. 92.]
6 p. 115. 7 [in Hammond's Account, ubi supra.]
48 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
as much, when he concludes Austin in the right from
the miracles and Divine vengeance upon the refusers,
continuing still refractory to his proposals.
Of the right of the cause we now dispute not ;
and he acknowledgeth, that Augustine had not pos
session, the thing we contend for. However this
instance being of great moment in the whole contro
versy, let us briefly examine what H. T. hath said
against it.
Objection H. T. questions the authority of the Welsh MS. 1
Answer. But the account there is so perfectly agreeable to
the general account given by others (most competent
witnesses), and even Bede himself, that as we have no
necessity to insist much upon it, so they have no
reason at all to question it. Besides, if the reader
would more fully satisfy himself, he may see all the
exceptions against this MS. at large answered by
Dr Hammond and the Archbishop Bramhall 2 .
Objection But Bede concludes, that the Britains ought to
have yielded in the points specified, from the miracle
wrought by Augustine upon the blind man ; and from
that Divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Au
gustine.
Answers. (1) We now know what tricks are used to coun
terfeit miracles in the sight of simple people.
(2) We know not but that miracle might be
said, but never done, as many in the Legends are :
and Bede might report, from very slight tradition, a
thing tending to the confirming his own cause.
1 [Hammond's Account, ubi supra; wl.ero may be also seen the
objections wbich follow.]
2 [See references, p. 47, note 1.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 4<)
(3) By Bcde's own confession, the miracle did
prevail with the Britains to acknowledge, that the
way of righteousness Augustine preached was the
true ; yet they added, that they could not renounce
their ancient customs without the consent and licence
of their own superiors : i.e. they thought the miracle
confirmed his doctrine, but not the Pope's authority
over them : and therefore, lastly, at their second
meeting, they deemed his pride a stronger argument
against him than his miracle for him.
And for that latter argument from the slaughter, Answer,
first threatened and then fulfilled,
Sure it was no strange thing, that a proud man
(as Augustine appeared to be) should threaten re
venge ; and a bloody minded man, to endeavour to
execute it, as is evident he did.
Neither is it like a great miracle, that a vast army
should first overcome unarmed monks ; and then pro
ceed victoriously against other opposers.
Yet the latter part of the story quite spoils the
miracle, or the argument from it : for when Ethelfred,
in the heat of his rage and victory, proceeded to
destroy the remainder of those monks, the avenger
of blood met him l : the British forces routed his
army, and killed ten thousand and sixty of them.
But the conclusion for my present turn stands
firm however ; that, notwithstanding these preten
sions of miracles, the British rejected the papacy,
and adhered to their proper governors, i. e. the
Pope then had not the possession of them.
1 [He was defeated by Redwald, king of East Anglia, A.n. 617.
Turner's Hist, of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. I. p. 349.]
4
50 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
I shall conclude here with that smart reply of
Archbishop Bramhall to S. W. " To demonstrate
evidently to him how vain all his trifling is against
the testimony of Dionothus, why doth he not answer
the corroboratory proof, which I brought out of
Venerable Bede and others, of two British Synods,
held at the same time, wherein all the British clergy
did renounce all obedience to the Bishop of Home, of
which all our historiographers do bear witness ? Why
doth he not answer this, but pass it by in so great
silence ? He might as well accuse this of forgery as
the other ; since it is so well attested, that Dionothus
was a great actor and disputer in that business 1 ."
SECTION I.
THAT NO ONE PART OF PAPAL JURISDICTION WAS
EXERCISED HERE, FOR THE FIRST SIX HUNDRED
YEARS NOT ORDINATION ST TELAUS, &c.
TILL 1100 YEARS AFTER CHRIST
NOR ANY OTHER.
Not pie- ~f~F we consider the Pope's jurisdiction in its par-
narily.
J_ ticular acts, we find not so much as any one exer
cised or acknowledged here, during the space of the
first six hundred years ; but, as far as history gives
us any account thereof, all acts of jurisdiction were
performed by our own governors.
First, had the Pope had any jurisdiction here at all,
it would doubtless have appeared in the Ordination or
Consecration of our Bishops. ' Ordinationis Jus ccetera
Jura sequuntur' is a known rule in law : but it is
1 [Works, Vol. n. pp. :>4, HOD.J
CHAP. VI. j PRESCRIPTION. 51
evident that our own Primates were independent Not Ordi-
nntion.
themselves, and ordained new Bishops, and created
new Bishoprics, without licence first obtained from,
or giving any account thereof to the Pope. Saint
Telaus consecrated and ordained Bishops, as he
thought fit : ' he made one Hismael Bishop of Saint
David's'; and " in like manner advanced many others
of the same order to the same degree, sending them
throughout the country, and dividing the parishes
for the best accommodation of the clergy and of
the people 1 ."
But were not our Primates themselves nominated Question
or elected by the Pope, and consecrated by him, or
had licence from him ?
The contrary is manifest enough : all our British Answer.
Archbishops and Primates were nominated and
elected by our Princes with Synods, and ordained
by their own suffragans at home ; as Dubritius, Saint
David, Sampson, &c. not only in the reigns of Aure-
lius Ambrosius, and king Arthur, but even until the
time of Henry the First, after the eleven hundredth
year of Christ, as Giraldus Cambrensis saith : "And
always until the first conquest of Wales they were
consecrated by the Archbishop of Saint David's ; and
he was likewise consecrated by other Bishops, as his
suffragans, without professing any manner of subjec
tion to any other Church 2 ."
Now is it not fair to expect from our adversaries
1 Vid. Regest. [Landav.] apud Ussher, tie Britan. Eccl. Antiq.
[c. xiv. p. 291, ed. Lond. 1687.]
2 Itinerarium, Camb. Lib. H. c. 1 ; [p. 856, 1. 10, etc. aputl
Cainden. Anglica Scripta. Cf. Bramhall's Replication to the Bp
of Chaleedon: Works, Vol. n. pp. 151, 152.]
4 <_>
52 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
one instance, either of a Bishop or Archbishop or
dained or consecrated, during the first six hundred
years by papal authority in Britain, from their own
or our British records ? But this challenge, made by
Archbishop Bramhall 1 , receives no answer.
Objection. Here the Bishop of Chalcedon only offers, " That
few or no records of British matters for the first six
hundred years do remain 2 ."
Answer. " This is no answer," (saith the Primate 3 ) " while
all the Roman registers are extant : yea, so extant,
that Platina, the Pope's library-keeper, is able out of
them, to set down every ordination made by the pri
mitive Bishops of Rome, and the persons ordained."
He adds, " Let them shew what British Bishops
they have ordained, or what British appeals they
have received for the first six hundred years: (though
he please to omit it) I have shewed plainly out of the
list of the Bishops ordained three by Saint Peter,
eleven by Linus, fifteen by Clement, six by Ana-
cletus, five by Evaristus, five by Alexander, and four
by Sixtus, &c. that there were few enough for the
Roman province, none to spare for Britain 4 ."
st Peter. (1) It is said 5 that ' Saint Peter ordained here' ;
but that was before he had been at Rome : therefore
not as Pope of Rome.
1 [Just Vindication : Works, Vol. I. p. 158.]
2 R. C. [i. e. Richard Chalcedon's 'Brief Survey/ p. 70, ed.
Paris. 1654.]
3 [Bramhall's Replication, p. 166.]
4 Vid. Bramhall, Tom. i. Disc. m. p. 207; [Vol. n. pp. 166, 167,
new edit.]
5 [This and the following objections are taken from R. C.'s
'Survey,' pp. 71, et seqq. The answers are mainly from Bramhall's
'Replication,' ul>i supra. j
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 53
(2) ' Eleutherius sent Fugatius and Damianus' ; Eieuthe-
but what to do ? To baptize King Lucius : upon
the same errand he sent Victor into Scotland 1 .
(3) ' Palladius and Ninian are instances of men Palladius.
sent to preach to the Picts and Scotland, as Saint
Patrick into Ireland' : this was kindly done, but we
have not one syllable of any jurisdiction all this
while : besides, it is remarkable, though there be a
dispute about Palladius his being sent, yet it is
certain he was rejected, and after died ; in whose
place Saint Patrick succeeded, without any mandate
from Rome, that we read of 2 .
(4) ' Geoffrey of Monmouth saith, that Dubritius, Objection.
Primate of Britain, was Legate of the see Apostolic,' Legates.
And we say that Geoffrey tells many fables : and that
it is gross credulity to believe him contrary to the
authentic history, and more undoubted practices of
those times. ' We read,' (saith the Primate) ' of many
Legates ; but certainly either they were no papal
Legates, or papal Legates in those days were but
ordinary messengers, and pretended not to any lega-
1 [The argument is, that baptizing was no act of jurisdiction.
In the latter clause, however, there is some mistake; for Victor,
Bishop of Rome, is not said to have come in person to Ireland (the
ancient Scotland), but only to have sent missionaries to King Donald,
as Eleutherius had sent to Lucius. The whole story is considered
fabulous by Bp Stillingfleet, Origines Britan. chap. ii. p. 53; ed.
Lond. 1840.]
2 Bed. in vit. S. Pat. Lib. i. [This life of St Patrick is among
the works of Bede, but was composed by Probus, according to Cave,
Hist. Liter, in Bed It contains no mention of Coelestinus, although
Patrick's mission is ascribed to that Pope bySigebert of Gemblours
and Matthew of Westminster. Vid. Spelman. Concil. Tom. i. pp.
49, 50. A fuller account may be seen in Ussher, de Britan. Eccl.
Antiq. c. xvii. pp. 425, et seq<i.]
54 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
tine power, as it is now understood : for we read [not]
so much as any one act of jurisdiction done by them,
and firmly conclude thence that there was none'.'
Objection. But R. C. saith, ' St Sampson had a Pall from
Rome.'
Solution. He had a Pall, but it is not proved that he had it
from Rome ; it is certain, Archbishops and Patriarchs
in the primitive times had Palls, which they received
not from Rome 2 .
Besides, if he did receive that Pall from Rome,
in all probability it was after the first six hundred
years : if either, according to Cambrensis 3 , he was
the five and twentieth Archbishop after St David, or,
according to Hoveden 4 , the four and twentieth ; and
then it is nothing to our present question.
Objection. ' St Gregory granted to Austin the use of the
Fail. Pall,' saith R. C. 'the proper badge and sign of
Archiepiscopal dignity, and gave him liberty to or
dain twelve Bishops under his jurisdiction, as Arch
bishop of Canterbury.'
Solution. This was done at the end of the first six hundred
years, and therefore not to our present question :
however, if the Pagan Saxons had destroyed Chris
tianity among the Britains (as they say), it was very
christianly done of St Gregory, to send Augustine to
convert and re-establish the Church among them ;
but none can imagine, that by receiving Augustine
1 [Replication, p. 173.]
2 [On the history and use of the 'Pall/ see Twysdcn's Hist.
Vindication, pp. 58, et seqq.]
3 Itiner. Camb. Lib. n. c. 1.
1 R. de Hoveden, Annal. A. v. 111)9, [p. 798, 1. 9, etc. inter
' Rerum Anglic. Scriptores' : Francofurt. 1601.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 55
and his Bishops, they intended to submit themselves
and posterity to the see of Rome ; which when
pressed before, the Britains so unanimously rejected.
Neither indeed could they do it to the prejudice
of the ancient primacy of the Britains, existing long-
before, and confirmed in its independency upon any
foreign power. For Bede himself 1 , as well as all our
own historians, makes it most evident, that the Bri
tains had Bishops long before : we find the subscrip
tions of three of them to the first Council of Aries 2
Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and
Adelfius de Civitate Colonia Lond and from the
presence of some of them at the Sardican Synod 3 ,
and the Council of Ariminum 4 , as appears by Atha-
nasius and others 5 ; and that they had also an Arch
bishop 6 or Primate, whose ancient seat had been at
Caerleon, who rejected the papacy, then possessing
and defending the privilege of their freedom from
any foreign jurisdiction 7 .
This their privilege was secured to them, both by
the Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Ephesian Councils 8 .
1 [Bede (Hist. Eccl. Lib. n. c. 2) informs us that seven Bishops
met Augustine to confer on the question of communion and co
operation.]
2 [A. D. 314. Concil. ed. Labb. Tom. i. 1430. Cf. Bingham,
Antiq. Book ix. chap. vi. s. 20.]
3 [A. D. 347.] 4 [A. D. 359.]
a [Apol. ad Constant. Opp. Tom. n. p. 720, ed. Colon. 1686;
Sulpic. Sever. Hist. Sacr. Lib. n. ad fin.]
6 [viz. Menevensis Archiepiscopus (Archb. of St David's). The
archiepiscopal see had been translated first to Llandaff (A. D. 512),
and soon after to St David's. Cf. Spelman, Concil. Tom. i. pp.
106, 107, and Bingham, ubi supra.]
' [See above, p. 32.]
8 [For the decisions of the Councils of Nice and Ephosus, see
PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
Contrary to these Councils, if the Pope did intend
to give Augustine the primacy over the Britains, it
was a plain usurpation. Certainly the privileges of
the Britannic Church returned with its Christianity ;
neither could Gregory dispose of them to Austin, or
he to Gregory.
Besides, lastly, it is not possible any sober man
can imagine, that that humble and holy Pope, St
Gregory, who so much detested (if in earnest) the
inn earn- very title 1 of Universal Bishop, should actually in
vade the privilege of the Britains, and hazard his
own salvation in his own judgment, when he so
charitably designed the conversion of England by
sending Austin hither.
Objection. R. C. saith, ' It appears that Britain was anciently
\Viifrid. subject to the see of Rome : for Wilfrid, Archbishop
of York, appealed to Rome twice, and was twice
restored to his Bishopric.'
AD U fi73' We SGe when this was done ; seventy and three
years after the first six hundred.
He appealed indeed 2 , but was still rejected ; not
withstanding the sentence of Rome in his favour, for
six years together, during the reigns of King Egbert
and Alfred his son; so far is this instance from
being a proof of the Pope's possession here at that
time. Yet this is " the most famous," saith my Lord
Bramhall "(I had almost said, the only) appellant
above, pp. 36, 39 ; and that usurped jurisdiction was not sanctioned
by the Council of Chalcedon is proved in Mr Palmer's 'Jurisdiction
of British Churches,' sect, v.]
1 [See above, p. 39, note 2.]
2 [For a history of his appeals, see Twysden's Hist. Vindication,
pp. 3640.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 57
from England to Rome, that we read of before the
Conquest 1 ."
Moreover, the answer of King Alfred to the Alfred.
Pope's Nuncio, sent hither by the Pope on purpose,
is very remarkable. He told him, " he honoured
them as his parents for their grave lives and honour
able aspects, but he could not give any assent to
their legation ; because it was against reason, that a
person, twice condemned by the whole Council of the
English, should be restored upon the Pope's letter 2 ."
At this time it is apparent, neither the Kings of
England, nor the Councils of English Churchmen
as my Lord Bramhall expresseth 3 it, "two Kings
successively, and the great Councils of the kingdom,
and the other Archbishop, Theodore, with all the
prime Ecclesiastics, and the flower of the English
Clergy, opposing so many sentences and messages
from Rome" did believe that England was under
the jurisdiction of Rome, or ought to be so.
Yea, the King and the Church, after Alfred's After AI.
death, still made good this conclusion, that it was
' against reason, that a person twice condemned by
the whole Council of the English, should be restored
upon the Pope's bull 4 .'
Malmesbury would suggest, that the King and
the Archbishop Theodore were smitten with remorse
1 [Just Vindication; Works, Vol. i. p. 133.]
2 Spelman, Concil. A.D. 705, [Tom. i. p. 203.]
3 [Ubi supra, p. 134.]
4 [The result was that an English Synod promoted John of
Beverley from Hcxham to York, and placed Wilfrid in Hexhain
and Ripon. See Twysden, p. 39.]
58 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
before their deaths, for the injury done to Wilfrid 1 ,
&c. But not the King only, but the whole Council,
not Theodore alone, but the whole Clergy, opposed
the Pope's letter ; which is enough both to render
the dream of Malmesbury a ridiculous fable, and for
ever to confirm this truth, that England was not then,
viz. in the six hundred seventy and third year of
Christ, under the jurisdiction of the Pope, either
actually, or in the belief of the Church or kingdom
of England.
The latter, viz. the non-possession of our belief
of the Pope's universal jurisdiction which is so
much insisted upon by the Romanists will yet more
evidently appear by that which followeth.
SECTION II.
NO POSSESSION OF OUR BELIEF ANCIENT.
Not in TT7E have found the Britains, by the good Abbot,
England. 1/V
and two several Synods, we have found the
State of England in three successive Kings, their
great Councils and body of the Clergy, refused to
yield obedience both to the Pope's persuasions, in
junctions, sentences, and Legates : therefore it seems
1 [Cf. BramhalFs 'Just Vindication,' p. 134; where the Oxford
editor remarks that Malmesbury's account agrees with the Life of
Wilfrid, capp. 42, 58, in Gale's ' Scriptores xv/ It is certain, how
ever, that the warmest opponents of Wilfrid were at the time
regarded as the greatest ornaments of the English Church. Cf.
Twysden, pp. 39, 40; Turner's Hist, of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. I.
pp. 385, et seqq.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 59
impossible that Britain or England should then be
lieve either the Pope's Infallibility, or their obligation
to his jurisdiction ; or that there was any such thing
as the tradition of either, delivered to them by their
ancestors, or believed among them.
Indeed, by this one argument, those four great
characters of the papacy are deleted and blotted out
for ever, viz. Possession, Tradition, Infallibility, and
Antiquity.
I shall add the practice and belief of Scotland Nor in
Scotland.
too, that other great part of our King's dominions.
When the Pope's Legate, more than twice six hun
dred years after Christ, viz. about 1238, entered
Scotland, to visit the churches there, Alexander the
Second, then King of the Scots, forbad him so to do,
alleging, ' That none of his predecessors had ever
admitted any such, neither would he suffer it ; ' and
therefore willed him at his own peril to forbear 1 .
Hence it is evident, there was neither tradition nor
belief either of the Pope's ancient and necessary
government, and therefore not of his infallibility ; .
much less that anciently and from the beginning, the
Pope had exercised his jurisdiction more in Scotland
than in England. We have that King's word for it,
' None of his predecessors had ever admitted any
such.'
1 Mat. Paris. [Hist. Major.] A.D. 1239, [p. 498, I. 25; ed. Lond.
1639.]
60 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
SECTION III.
IN THE CANONS, APOSTOLICAL, NICENE, MILEVITAN,
&c., THIS BELIEF COULD HAVE NO GROUND.
WHAT could possibly sway the first ages to such
a belief of the Pope's universal jurisdiction 1 ?
Certainly nothing from the Councils, nor the practice
of the Church in other places, nor indeed the de
clared judgment of the Pope himself, nor the words
of the Laws.
Not Coun- I. Nothing to be found in the Canons of the An-
cils.
dent Councils could invite to such belief.
Apostles' In the Apostles' Canons 2 we find the quite con-
Canons.
trary ; TT^WTOS, the first or Primate among the Bishops
of every nation, shall be accounted w$ /ce0a\>), 'as
their Head ' ; and that every one of those Primates
shall e/ceii/a V.QVO. irpdrTeiv, 'do those things only which
belong to his province and the regions under it.'
Nice. And in pursuance of those Canons, the first Nicene
Council decreed TOVS v(p>' eTepwv d7ro/3\7?0ei/ras, v(f>
Tp(av M irpoaieaOai ; ' that they that are cast out by
some, shall not be received by other Bishops,' and
' that this must be observed by the Bishops through
every province 3 ;' and in further harmony the Milevi-
tan Council prohibits ' all appeal from their own
Bishops, but to the African Councils and Primates of
their own provinces ; and that they which shall ap
peal to any foreign, whether Bishop or Council, shall
1 Vid. cap. xx.
2 [Apost. Canon, xxxiv; quoted above, p. 34, note l.J
s [Nica>n. Concil. Can. v: apud Labb. Concil. Tom. 11. 32; A.J
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 61
not be received into Communion by any in Africk 1 .'
And, lastly, the practice of all this is visible in the
very Synodical Epistle of the African Council to
Pope Coelestine, where they beseech him for the
future, ' that he will receive none such, because he
may easily find it defined in the Council of Nice 2 .'
These Canons are all in the Roman Codex, and
cannot be pretended to be invalid ; neither can they
possibly oblige any man to believe that the Pope had
universal jurisdiction as is now pretended.
Moreover, as Dr Hammond 3 notes, to some of
these Canons the Pope himself makes oath, that he Pope
swears to
will inviolably observe them ; and from that oath of theOanons.
the Pope, our Bishops made this very conclusion,
that the Popes, that exercised a primacy over any
other Bishops but those of their own province in
Italy, transgressed their own profession made in their
creation 4 : as further appears 5 by the ' Institution of
a Christian Man' in the year 1538.
(But more largely of this in the last chapters.)
Therefore the Britains could not believe that they
1 [Concil. Milevit. A.D. 416, Can. xxii; apud Labb. Tom. ir.
1542, 1543: " Quod si et ab eis provocandum putaverint, non pro-
vocent, nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates provinciarum
suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, a nullo
intra African! in communionem suscipiatur."]
2 Vid. Dr Hammond, at large, ' Dispatcher Dispatcht,' pp. 397,
etc. [Works, Vol. II. p. 221.]
3 [Ibid. : the reference being to the ' Corpus Juris Canonici,'
Decret. Part I. Distinct, xvi. c. 8. For at least eight centuries,
every Bishop of Rome took an oath on the day of his consecration,
to ' keep the sacred Canons, and the Constitutions of the holy
Bishops.' Mr Palmer's Jurisdiction of British Bishops, p. 81.]
4 [Hammond, Treatise of Schism ; Works, Vol. i. p 105.]
s [See ' Formularies of Faith.' p. 55; ed. Oxf. 1825.]
62 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
then owed subjection to the papacy, but they must
charge the writers of the Apostolic Canons (whether
by Apostles or apostolical men) and the Councils, for
enacting sacrilegious decrees ; and the Pope also for
swearing the inviolable observation of them.
These things are plain, and S. W. by pretending
in general, that words admit of various interpreta
tions, without applying his rule to the case, gives but
too just occasion to Dr Hammond to expose him as
he doth 1 .
Eadmer 2 speaks plain and home too ; it was inau-
ditum in Britannia, quemlibet hominum super se vices
apostolicas gerere, nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuarice,
' it was a thing unheard of ; ' no practice of it, no
tradition for it: therefore no such thing could be
believed, that any other (not the Pope himself) did
apostolically govern the affairs of Britain, but only
the Archbishop of Canterbury.
SECTION IV.
COUNCILS OF SARDICA, CIIALCEDON, CONSTANTI
NOPLE.
S:.rdica. TT may be 3 said, the Britains might hear of the
JL Canon of the Council of Sardica, where it was
decreed, that Bishops grieved might appeal to the
Bishop of Rome.
1 See ' Dispatcher Dispatcht,' pp. 181, etc. [Works, Vol. u.
pp. 224, et seqq.]
2 [Hist. Novonim], p. 58, 1. 43; [ed. SeKlon )
3 Vid. cap. xx. sect. ix.
CFIAP. VI.J PRESCRIPTION. 63
The words of the Council are these 1 : "In case Solution,
any Bishop, for any cause condemned, maintain his
innocence, if it seem good to you, let us honour the
memory of Peter the Apostle, that it be written by
those who have judged the cause to Julius the Bishop
of Rome ; and if it seem good, let the judgment be
renewed, and let them appoint such as may take cog
nizance of it." Hereupon it is plain
i
(1) These Fathers did not acknowledge the
Pope's supremacy, who thus laid it at the feet, and
pleasure of others ' if it seem good to you.'
(2) Here is no peremptory order neither, and it
might not seem good to civil Princes to suffer such
Appeals.
(3) No absolute appeal it seems was intended ;
but only the Bishop of Rome might review the case :
and how much a review differs from appeal, and that
nothing but power to review is here given to the
Bishop of Rome, are both fully manifested by the
Archbishop of Paris 2 .
(4) The Decree (such as it is) is not grounded
upon any prior right, from Scripture, tradition, or
1 [Concil. Sardic. A.D. 347, Can. iii; apud Labb. Tom. ir. 629,
A. : Ei 8f dpd ris eVicrKOTrcoi/ ev TIVI TTpdypaTi 86^rj KaraKpivfa-ffm, Kai
i>7ro\afj,^dvfi tavTov pf/ cradpbv aXXa KO\OV e%fiv TO Trpay/ia, tea Kai
avdis ri Kpicris dvaveadf)' tl SoKet vpcav rfj dydnr], Herpov TOV aTrocrroArn/
rr)V p.vijp.T)v TifJLijcrcofjifV, Kai ypafpfjvai Trapa TOVTO>V TU>V
T<5 tVto-Korro) 'P<ap.r]s, tucrre 8ia ra>v yeirvuavTtoV rrj eV
(I 8eoi, dvavf<t>6r)vai TO diKao-TJpiov, Kai fTriyvufjLovas UVTOS
K. T. X.]
2 Petr. de Marca, de Concordia, Lib. vn. c. 3, s. 6, 7, &c. [Cf.
ibid. Lib. v. s. 47; Lib. vi. c. 30, s. 9; Bramhall, 'Schism Guarded,'
Vol. it. pp.531, et soqq. Numerous authorities supporting the same
view, may be seen in Dr Wordsworth's ' Theophilus Anglicanus.'
pp. 138, 139.]
64 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
possession, or any former Council ; hath no other
argument but the honour of Saint Peter ; and that
not in his authority, but his memory, who first sat in
that see, where Julius was now Bishop. But we may
have leave to ask, where was the supremacy of the
Church of Rome before ? or how should the Britains
dream of it before ? or why did not these Canons
take notice of the undoubted Canon of Nice to the
contrary, made two and twenty years before, either
to null or explain it?
But that these Sardic Canons neither established
the Pope's supremacy, nor were acknowledged to
bind the Church afterwards, nor could be accounted
an Appendix to the Council of Nice, and what weak
ness and falseness has been practised upon this argu
ment is so largely, ingenuously and satisfactorily
manifested by Doctor Stillingfleet, that I shall for his
fuller satisfaction refer the reader to him 1 .
It is strongly argued, in the last reasonings of my
Lord Bramhall 2 , that ' after the Eastern Bishops were
departed, this Council of Sardica was no General
Council ; because the presence of five great Patri
archs were ever held necessary to the being of a
General Council ; as Bellarmine himself confesseth, de
Concil. Lib. i. c. 17.
' If this Council had been general, why do Saint
Gregory, Isidore, and Bede, leave it out of the
number of General Councils ? Why did Saint Aus
tin, Alypius and the African Fathers, slight it ? And
1 Rational Account, pp. 419, etc. [Vol. n. pp. 206, et seqq. ed.
1844. Cf. also Bp Stillingfleet's Origines Britan. pp. 145, 146.]
2 [Schism Guarded: Works, Vol. 11. pp. 532, 533.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 65
(which is more) why do the Eastern Church not
reckon it among their seven, nor the Western Church
among their eight first General Councils ? Why did
the English Church omit it in their number in the
Synod of Hedtfeld 1 in the year 680, and embrace
only unto this day the Council of Nice, the first of
Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and the first
and second of Chalcedon 2 ?'
The first five General Councils were therefore in
corporated into our English Laws ; but this Council
of Sardica never was. Therefore, contrary to this
Canon of Appeal, it is the fundamental Law of
England, in that famous memorial of Clarendon, ' All
Appeals in England must proceed regularly from
the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to
the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop failed to do
justice, the last complaint must be to the King to
give order for redress 3 .'
It is evident, the great Council of Chalcedon 4 Chalcedon.
contradicted this Canon for Appeals to Rome
where Appeals from the Archbishop are directed to
be made 'to every Primate, or the holy see of
Constantinople,' as well as Rome. From which evi
dence, we have nothing but silly evasions, as that
Primate 5 truly observes.
Besides, if our forefathers had heard of the Ca-
1 Apud Spelman, Concil. [Tom. i.] p. 169.
2 [See authorities in the new edition of Bramhall, Vol. n. p.
533.]
3 [Mat. Paris, Hist. Major. A.D. 1245, pp. 100, 101. Cf. Bram
hall, ubi supra ]
4 Act. xv. Can. ix. [apud Labb. Concil. Tom. iv. 759, n.]
5 [Bramhall,] Schism Guarded, p. 374: [Works, Vol. n. p. 534.]
5
66 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
nons of the Councils truly general as no doubt
they had how could they possibly believe the un-
Constanti- limited jurisdiction of Rome ? The Council of Con-
nople.
stantinople is not denied to give equal privileges to
the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch
Chalcedon. of Rome 1 . And the Council of Chalcedon conclude
thus 2 : "For the" (Nicene) "Fathers did justly give
privileges to the see of old Rome, because it was
the imperial city ; and the hundred and fifty godly
Bishops, moved with the same consideration, did give
equal privileges to the see of new Rome ; rightly
judging, that that city, which was the seat of the
empire and senate, should enjoy equal privileges
with the ancient imperial city of Rome, and be ex
tolled and magnified in ecclesiastical affairs as w r ell
as it, being the second in order from it." And in
the last sentence of the Judges, upon review of the
cause " The Archbishop of the imperial city of
Constantinople, or new Rome, must enjoy the same
privileges of honour, and have the same power, out
of his own authority to ordain Metropolitans in the
Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian Dioceses."
1 [Concil. Constant. I. A.D. 381, Can. iii: T6i> \iiv rot Kwo-rav-
TivovTr6\f(t>s firicrKOTrov fx flv Ta 7Tpecr/3eta rrjs niiffs p.era TOP rfjs 'P(0fj.r}s
fTria-KOTrov, Sia TO elvai avrr^v veav 'P(a/jLT)v. Labb. Concil. Tom. II.
947, C.]
2 [Concil. Chalcedon. Act. xv. Can. xxviii: Kal yap r<5 6p6va>
rrjs TTpffffivrfpas 'Pco/i^y, 8ia TO fiaaiXevfiv rf/v iroXiv fKfivrjv, ol irarepts
ei/coTws aTroSeStDKCHTt TO. Trpecr/Sfia. KOI TW avrw CTKOTTW Kivovpfvoi ol pv.
6eo<pi\ea-TaTOi eVt'crKOTrot Ta ttra Trpfcr^ela anevfi^av T< rijs Vfas 'Pca-
fjiijs dytwTora) 6p6v(p, fv\6ycas Kpivavres, TTJV /SaatXet'a KOI a~vyK\ijTa>
Tip.rjdflcrav TroXtJ', Kal TO>V \<ra>v a.Tro\avov(rav irptcrfttiaiv Trj TTpf(r/3vT(pa
^atriXi'St 'Pd>fj.rj, KOI ev rots cKKXTjcriacrTiKols, coy fKtanjV, fj.fya\vvf(T0ai
Trpaypairi, 8fvrepav /xer' tKflvqv vnfp(xov<rav.~\
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 67
Are these the words of a General Council ? Could
these Fathers imagine the Pope at that time Monarch
of the whole Church ? Or could this be acknow
ledged by England at first, and they yet give up
their Faith to the Pope's universal power? Can
these things consist ? Yea, is there not something
in all the Councils allowed by the ancient Britains,
and the ancient English Church, sufficient to induce
a Faith quite contrary to the Roman pretensions ?
But as to this Canon of Constantinople, S. W. Objection,
quits his hands; roundly telling us, tnat it 'was no
free act,' but ' voted tumultuously, after most of the
Fathers were departed.'
S. W. had been safer, if he had been wiser : for Solution,
that which he saith is altogether false, and besides
such a cluster of forgeries, as deserves the whet
stone to purpose ; as my Lord Bramhall manifests
against him 1 .
(1) False : the act was made before the Bishops
had license to depart ; it had a second hearing ; and
was debated by the Pope's own Legates on his be
half, before ' the most glorious Judges' ; and maturely
sentenced by them in the name of the Council 2 .
This was one of those four Councils, which Saint
Gregory honoured next to the four Gospels 3 . This
is one of those very Councils, which every succeed
ing Pope doth swear to observe to the least tittle 4 .
1 Schism Guarded, p. 354. [Works, Vol. n. p. 489.]
2 [Vid. Act. xvi. apud Labb. Concil. Tom. iv. 795.]
3 [" Sicut Sancti Evangelii quatuor libros." Greg. Epist. Lib.
I. c. 24 ; Indict, ix.]
4 [See above, p. 61.]
52
68 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
(2) For his forgeries about it, he is sufficiently
shamed by the Primate in the place cited 1 : it is
pity such shifts should be used, and it is folly to
use them ; when the truth appears, what remains but
both the person and the cause reproached 2 ?
SECTION V.
ARABIC CANONS FORGED, NO CANONS OF THE
COUNCIL OF NICE.
Objection. T7~ET it is a marvellous thing, that the Komanist
A should dare to impose upon so great and
learned a Primate as the late Archbishop Laud, that
by ' the third Canon of the Council of Nice, the
Patriarch is in the same manner over all those that
are under his authority, as he who holds the see of
Rome is head, and prince of the Patriarchs ' ' re
sembling Saint Peter, and his equal in authority 3 .'
Answer. When it is most evident to the meanest capacity,
that will search into it, that that is no Canon of the
true Council of Nice ; and that instead of the third,
it is the thirty-ninth of the supposititious and forged
Canons, as they are set forth in the Arabic editions,
both by Pisanus and Turrianus 4 .
In these editions there are no less than eighty
Canons pretended to be Nicene, whereas the Nicene
Council never passed above twenty ; as is evident
1 [Bramhall, Vol. n. pp. 489, 490.]
2 See more of the Councils at the latter end. [' Postscript.']
3 [Labbo, Concil. Tom. n. 303, c; but see Stillingfleet's Vindi
cation of Archbp. Laud, Vol. n. p. 158; ed. 1844.]
4 [In Labbe, ubi supra.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. <>'.')
from such as should know best the Greek authors,
who all reckon but twenty Canons of that Council :
such as Theodoret 1 , Nicephorus Callistus 2 , Gelasius
Cyzicenus 3 , Alphonsus Pisanus ; and Binius 4 himself
confesseth that all the Greeks say there were no more
but twenty Canons then determined.
Yea, the Latins themselves allowed no more : for
although Ruffinus 5 make twenty-two, it is by splitting
of two into four.
And in that Epitome 6 of the Canons, which Pope
Hadrian sent to Charles the Great, for the govern
ment of the Western Churches, A. D. 773, the same
number appears. And in Hincmarus's 7 MS. the same
is proved, from the testimonies of the Tripartite His
tory, Ruffinus, the Carthaginian Council, the epistles
of Cyril of Alexandria, Atticus of Constantinople,
and the twelfth action of the Council of Chalcedon.
And if we may believe a Pope, Stephen in ' Gratian 8 '
1 Theodoret. Eccl. Hist. Lib. I. c. viii; [p. 29. c ; ed. Vales.]
2 Niceph. Callist. Eccl. Hist. Lib. vin. c. 19 ; [Tom. i. p. 571, c ;
ed. Paris. 1630.]
3 [According to Cave (Hist. Liter.) this writer flourished about
A. D. 476. He composed a history of the Council of Nice, the
second book of which was transferred by Alphonsus Pisanus into
his own Latin history of that Council. The words of Gelasius are
as follows : ff'0ei>ro 8f KOI eKKX-rjcrtaa-riKovs xavovas eiKoaiv tv avrfj rfj
(v Niccm'a o-iWSa), K. r. X. Lib. ii. c. xxx. The whole history is
printed in Labbe, Concil. Tom. n.]
4 [Not. in Concil. Nicam. Tom. i. p. 366, col. i. A; ed. 1636.]
5 [Hist. Eccl. Lib. x. c. 6.]
6 [Apud Justell. Not. in Cod. Eccl. African, p. 13.]
7 [Apud Justell. ibid.]
8 [Corpus Juris Canon.] Distinct, xvi. c. xiii. [The reference,
however, does not quite bear out the text ; for, after stating that
there were extant in the Roman Church only twenty canons, Gra
tian makes this Popo to have addrd. ' sed quo neglcctu alia defece-
rint ;mibi<:uum cst."]
70 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
saith, the Roman Church did allow of no more than
twenty.
The truth is put beyond all question, lastly, both
by the proceedings of the African Fathers in the case
of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons, when an early
and diligent search made it evident ; and also by the
' Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africans,' where it is ex
pressly said, there was but twenty Canons 1 .
But this matter is more than clear, by the elabo
rate pains of Dr Stillingfleet [in his] defence of the
late Archbishop Laud ; to whom I must refer my
reader 2 .
Objection. Yet Bellarmine and Binius would prove there
were more than twenty 3 .
Solution. But their proofs depend either upon things, as
supposititious as the Arabic Canons themselves ; such
as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ' ad Marcum' ;
or else they only prove, that some other things were
determined by that Council, viz. concerning re-bapti-
zation, and the keeping of Easter, &c. which indeed
might be acts of the Council, without putting them
into the Canons, as Baronius 4 himself confesseth, and
leaves the patronage of them. And Spondanus 5 , in
his contraction of Baronius, relates it as his positive
opinion, that he rejected all but twenty, whether
Arabic or other, as spurious.
So that it will bear no further contest, but we
1 [p. 58 ; Cf. p. 363.]
2 pp. 391, 392; [Vol. n. pp. 158, et seqq. ed. 1844.]
3 [Ibid. Vol. n. p. 162; from whence the following solution is
epitomized.]
4 Annal. ad an. 325, CLXXX.
5 Epitom. Baron, ad an. 325, XLII.
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 71
may safely conclude, the Arabic Canons, and conse
quently this of the Pope's authority, is a mere forgery
of later times ; there being no evidence at all, that
they were known to the Church in all the time of the
four first general Councils.
SECTION VI.
PRACTICE INTERPRETED THE CANONS TO THE SAME
SENSE AGAINST THE POPE DISPOSING OF
PATRIARCHS CYPRIAN AUGUSTINE.
WE have found nothing in the Canons of the
ancient Councils that might give occasion to
the belief of the Pope's jurisdiction in England, in
the primitive ages of the Church ; but indeed very
much to the contrary.
But the Romanist l affirms against my lord of Can
terbury, that 'the practice of the Church is always the
best expositor and assertor of the Canons.'
We are now to examine, whether the ancient
practice of the Church was sufficient to persuade a
belief of the Pope's jurisdiction as is pretended : in
the mean time not doubting, but that it is a thing
most evident, that the Pope hath practised contrary
to the Canons, and the Canons have declared, and
indeed been practised against the Pope.
But what Catholic practice is found on record,
that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this Faith,
i [viz. T. C., or Thomas Carwell, in the 'Labyrinthus Can-
tuariensis,' p. 184; Cf. Bp Stillingfleet's Reply ('Vindication of
Archbp Laud'), Vol. n. p. 163.]
72 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
either in England or any part of Christendom? Cer
tainly not of Ordinations, or Appeals, or Visitations.
Yea, can it be imagined, that our English ancestors
had not heard of the practice of the Britains in
maintaining their liberty when it was assaulted by
Austin, and rejecting his demands of subjection to
the see of Rome 1 ? No doubt they had heard of
the Cyprian privilege 2 , and how it was insisted on in
bar of the universal pastorship, by their friends the
Eastern Church; from whom 3 they in likelihood re
ceived the Faith, and with whom they were found at
first in Communion, about the observation of Easter
and Baptism ; and in practice, diverse from the
Church of Rome.
Objection. But one great point of practice is here pitched
upon by Baronius, and after him by T. C. 4 It is the
Pope's confirmation of the election, deposing and re
storing, of Patriarchs ; which they say he did ' as head
and prince of all the Patriarchs,' and consequently of
the whole Church.
Solution. B ut w here hath he done these strange feats?
Certainly not in England. And we shall find the
instances not many nor very early any where else.
But to each branch.
Confirma- (1) It is urged, that the Pope's confirmation is
tion ot
Patriarchs, required to all new elected Patriarchs.
Admit it, but the Archbishop of Paris, Petrus de
Marca 5 , fully answers Baronius (and indeed every
1 [Sec above, pp. 45, 46.] 2 [g ee above, p. 30. J
3 [Cf. Twysden's Vindication, pp. 9, 13.J
4 [Cf. Stillingfleet, ubi supra.]
& De Concordia Sacerdotii ct Imperii, Lib. vi. c. v. s. 2.
CIIAI-. VI.J PRESCRIPTION. 73
body else), that ' this was no token of jurisdiction,
but only of receiving into Communion ; and as a tes
timony of consent to the Consecration.' If any force
be in this argument, then the Bishop of Carthage had
power over the Bishop of Rome ; because he and
other African Bishops confirmed the Bishop of Rome's
ordination 1 .
Baronius insists much upon ' the Confirmation of
Anatolius by Leo I.' which very instance answers it
self. Leo himself tells us, that it was to manifest,
' that there was but one entire Communion among
them throughout the world 2 .'
Yet it is not to be omitted, that the practice of Consecra-
the Church supposeth that the validity of the Patri- pends not
. . on confir-
arch s Consecration depended not upon the Con- mation.
firmation, or indeed, consent of the Pope of Rome.
Yea, though he did deny his communicatory let
ters, that did not hinder them from the execution
of their office. Therefore Flavianus 3 , the Patriarch
of Antioch, though opposed by three Roman Bishops
successively, who used all importunity with the
Emperor, that he might be displaced ; yet because
the Churches of the Orient did approve of him and
communicate with him, he was allowed, and their
consent stood against the Bishop's of Rome. At last,
the Bishop of Rome, severely rebuked for his pride
by the Emperor, yielded ; and his consent was given
1 S. Cyprian. Epist. LII. ed. Rigalt. [" quo (i. e. loco Fabiani)
occupato de Dei voluntate atque omnium nostrum consensione fir-
mato," etc.]
2 [Ep. xxxviii : " Ut per totum mundum una nobis sit unius
comimmionis integritas," etc.]
3 [Theodorct. Eccl. Hist. Lib. v. c. 23; Cf. Stillinafleet's Vindi-
nrrioM. Vol. ii. pp. 174, 17;V|
74 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
only by renewing communion with him. But where
was the Pope's pOAver, either to make, or make void
a Patriarch, while this was in practice ?
Deposing (2) Doth practice better prove the Pope's power
v ' to depose unworthy Patriarchs ? The contrary is evi
dent ; for both before and after the Council of Nice,
according to that Council, the practice of the Church
placed the power of deposing Patriarchs in provincial
Councils ; and the Pope had it not, till the Coun
cil of Sarclica decreed in the case of Athanasius, as
P. de Marca ! abundantly proves. Also, that the Coun
cil of Sardica itself, did not (as is commonly said) de
cree appeals to Rome ; but only gave the Bishop of
Rome power to review their actions, but still reserv
ing to provincial Councils that authority which the
Nicene Council had established them in 2 .
Objection. But T. C. urgeth, that ' we read of no less than
eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed
by the Bishop of Rome.'
Solution. Where doth he read it ? In an epistle of Pope
Nicolaus to the Emperor Michael. ' Well chosen,'
saith Doctor Stillingfleet ' a Pope's testimony in his
own cause ; and such a one as was then in contro
versy with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and so
late, too, as the ninth century is 3 ': when his power
was much grown from the infancy of it.
Yet, for all this, this Pope on such an occasion,
and at that time, did not say that the Patriarchs
mentioned by him were deposed by the Pope's sole
1 Vid. de Concordia, Lib. vn. c. i. s. 6.
2 [Concil. Nicsen. Can. v; and for the Council of Sardica, sec
above, p. 63.]
3 [Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. n. pp. 175, 176.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 75
authority, but not ejected sine consensu Romani
Pontificis, 'without his consent'; and his design was
only to shew, that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not
to have been deposed without his consent 1 .
' Did not Sixtus the third depose Polychronius Objection.
Bishop of Jerusalem ' ?
No. He only sent eight persons from a Synod Solution.
at Eome to Jerusalem ; who offered not, by the Pope's
authority to depose him, as should have been proved,
but by their means seventy neighbour-Bishops were
called, by whom he was deposed. Besides, Binius
himself condemns those very acts, that report this
story, for spurious 2 .
(3) But have we any better proof of the Pope's Restoring
power to restore such as were deposed ?
The only instance in this case brought by T. C. is
of Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius : and
indeed to little purpose 3 .
It is true, Athanasius, condemned by two Synods,
goes to Rome, where he and Paulus are received into
communion by Julius, not liking the decree of the
Eastern bishops. Julius never pleads his power to
depose Patriarchs, but that his consent for the sake
of unity should also have been first desired ; and that
so great a matter in the Church required a Council
both of the Eastern and Western Bishops 4 .
" But," saith Dr Stillingfleet, " when we consider
1 Vid. Nicol. I. Epist. viii. Michael. Imper. ; apud Concil. cd.
Bin. Tom. vi. p. 506.
2 Concil. Tom. n. p. 685.
3 [Cf. Stillingfleet, ubi supra, p. 176.]
4 Vid. P. dc Marca, de Concordia, Lib. vn. c. 4, s. 6.
76 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
with what heat and stomach this was received by the
Eastern Bishops ; how they absolutely deny that the
Western Bishops had any more to do with their pro
ceedings, than they had with theirs ; when they say,
that the Pope by this usurpation was the cause of all
the mischief that followed ; we see what an excellent
instance you have made choice of to prove the Pope's
power of restoring Bishops, by Divine right, and that
this was acknowledged by the whole Church 1 ."
Sure, so far the Church's practice abroad could
not prevail to settle his right of jurisdiction in the
English faith ; especially considering the practice of
our own Church, in opposing the letters and Legates
of Popes for six years together, for the restoring of
Archbishop Wilfrid, by two of our own successive
Kings, and the whole State of England ecclesiastical
and civil, as appeared above 2 .
Moreover, St Cyprian 3 professeth in the Council
of Carthage, " For no one of us hath made himself
Bishop of Bishops, or driven his fellow Bishops to
a necessity of obedience " : particularly relating to
Stephen, then Bishop of Rome, as Baronius himself
resolves 4 .
But upon a matter of fact, St Augustine gave his
own judgment, both of the Pope's power and action,
1 [Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. n. p. 177.]
2 [pp. 56, 57.]
3 [A. D. 255; apud Labb. Concil. Tom. i. 786: "Neque cnim
quisquam nostrum episcopum se csse episcoporum constituit, aut
tyrannico terrore ad observandi nccessitatem collegas suos adigit."
The Council was attended by eighty-seven bishops, besides priests
and deacons.]
1 Annal. Eocl. ;id an. 258, xxiv.
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 77
in that known case of the Donatists 1 . (1) They had
leave to be heard by foreign Bishops. (2) Forte non
debuit, ' yet perhaps Melchiades, the Bishop of the
Eoman Church, ought not to usurp to himself this
judgment, which had been determined by seventy
African Bishops, Tigisitanus sitting Primate.' (3) St
Augustine proceeds, ' And what will you say, if he did
not usurp this power ? For the Emperor, being de
sired, sent Bishops judges, which should sit with him,
and determine what was just upon the whole cause.'
So that upon the whole, it is easily observed, that in
St Augustine's judgment, both the right and the
power, by which the Pope (as the rest) proceeded,
was to be resolved to the Emperor, as a little before,
ad cujus curam, ' to whose care ' it did chiefly belong ;
de qua rationem Deo redditurus est, ' of which he
was to give account to God.' Could this consist with
the belief of the Pope's universal pastorship by Divine
right ? If there can possibly, after so clear evidence,
need more to be said of St Augustine's judgment in
this, it is only to refer you to the controversies be
tween the African Bishops and the Bishop of Rome,
in case of appeals 2 .
1 [S. Augustin. Epist. CLXII. The question is very fully stated in
Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. n. pp. 178, et seqq.]
2 Vid. Dr Hammond, ' Dispatcher Dispatcht', pp. 398, etc.
[Works, Vol. n. pp. 290, 291] ; Bp Stillingfleet's Vindication, [Vol.
ii. pp. 186 194. See below, sect, viii.]
78 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
SECTION VIT.
NOT THE SAYINGS OF ANCIENT POPES, OR PRACTICE
AGATHO PELAGIUS GREGORY VICTOR.
daFmed "\^/"^ can ^ nc ^ n thing in the ancient Canons, or
ancient practice, to ground a belief of the
Pope's authority in England upon ; yet sure Popes
themselves claimed it, and used expressions to let us
know it.
Were it so indeed, experience tells us how little
Popes are to be believed in their own cause ; and all
reason persuades us not to believe them, against the
Councils and practice of the Church, and the judg
ment of the Fathers.
But some of the ancient Popes have been found
so honest, as to confess against themselves ; and ac
knowledge plain truth against their own greatness.
The Pope's universal headship is not to be be-
Agatho. Heved from the words of Pope Agatho l , in his letter
to the Emperor ; where St Paul stands as high as
St Peter oi TWV 'A.TrooToXiav Kopv<paioi both are
said by him to be heads or chief of the Apostles.
Besides, he expressly claimed only the Western Patri
archate.
Peiagius. But Pope Pelagius II. is more plain and home to
Rome itself. Nee etiam Romanus Pontifex univer-
salis est appellandus 'the Pope of Rome is not to
be called universal Bishop 2 .' This was the opinion of
1 Concil. Tom. v. p. 61, B. [ed. Bin. Numerous other testi
monies to the equality of the Apostles, both in honour and juris
diction, may be seen in Barrow, on the Pope's Supremacy, Suppos. i.
Works, Vol. i. pp. 587593 ; ed. 1716.]
2 [Corpus Juris Canon.] Decret. Part i. Distinct, xcix. [cap. v.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 79
that Pope of Rome himself, as it is cited out of his
Epistle, and put into the body of the law by Gratian.
Now one would think, that the same law denied the
power, that denied the title properly expressing that
power.
How triflingly 1 doth S. W. object, 'these words
are not found in the Council of Carthage, while they
are found in the Corpus Juris' the Law now of as
much force at Rome as that Council.
It is weaker to say 2 , they are Gratian's own addi
tion, seeing his addition is now law ; and also proved
to be the sense of the Pope Pelagius. In his Epistle,
he saith, ' Let none of the Patriarchs ever use the
name of Universal 31 , applying in the conclusion to
himself, being then Pope, as one of that number ;
and so, if he were either Pontifex Maximus, or a
Patriarch, and neither himself nor any Patriarch might
be called Universalis, then sure nothing was added
by him, that said in his Title to the fourth chapter as
Gratian did, Nee etiam Romanus Pontifex, ' not even
the Bishop of Rome must be called Universal Bishop'.
But what shall be said to St Gregory, who in his Gregory.
Epistle to Eulogius 4 , Bishop of Alexandria, tells him,
1 [Cf. Hammond's ' Dispatcher Dispatcht', chap. v. sect, ix :
Works, Vol. n. p. 297.] 2 [Ibid.]
3 [" Nullus Patriarcharum universalitatis vocabulo unquam uta-
tur." Corpus Juris Canon, ubi supra.]
4 Gregor. Epist. Lib. vn. Indict, i. ep. xxx ; [ed. Antverp.
1615 : " Non tamen invenio vestram beatitudinem, hoc ipsum quod
memorise vestrse intuli, perfecte retinere voluisse. Nam dixi, nee
mihi vos, nee cuiquam alteri tale aliquid scribere debere ; et ecce
in prsefatione epistolse, quam ad me ipsum qui prohibui direxistis,
superbse appellationis verbum universalem me papam dicentes, im-
primere curastis," etc. etc. Opp. Tom. iv. col. 240, F.]
80 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
'that he had prohibited him to call him Universal
Father ; that he was not to do it ; that reason re
quired the contrary ; that it is derogatory to his bre
thren ; that this honour had, by a Council, that of
Chalcedon, been offered to his predecessors, but re
fused and never used by any'.
Again higher he tells Mauritius 1 , 'fidenter dico,
whoever calls himself Universal Priest, or desires to
be so called, is by his pride a forerunner of Anti
christ ' ; ' his pride is an indication of Antichrist
approaching', as he saith to the Empress. Yea, 'an
imitation of none but the Devil, endeavouring to
break out to the top of singularity', (as he saith 3 to
John himself) : yea elsewhere he calls this title, ' the
name of blasphemy 4 ', and saith, that those that con
sent to it do fidem perdere, 'destroy the Faith 5 '.
A strong title, that neither Saint Gregory, nor,
as he saith, any one of his predecessors, no Pope that
1 Lib. vi. ep. xxx : [" Ego autem fidenter dico, quia quisquis se
universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua
antichristuin prsecurrit, quia superbiendo se cseteris prseponit."
Opp. Tom. iv. col. 215, E.]
2 Lib. iv. [Indict, xni.] ep. xxxiv : [" Sed in hac ejus superbia
quid aliud nisi propinqua jam antichrist! esse tempora designatur ?"
Opp. Tom. iv. col. 140, A.]
3 Lib. iv. [Indict, xm.] ep. xxxviii; [" Quis rogo in hoc tarn
perverso vocabulo, nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur, qui, despectis
angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis, ad culmen cona-
tus est singularitatis erumpere, ut et nulli subesse, et solus omnibus
prseesse videretur." Opp. Tom. iv. col. 145, D.]
4 Lib. iv. [Indict, xni.] ep. xxxii : [" Sed absit a cordibus
Christianorum nomen istud blasphemiae, in quo omnium sacor-
dotum honor adimitur, dum ab uno sibi dementer arrogatur." Opp.
Tom. iv. col. 137, E.]
5 Ibid. ep. xxxix; ["In isto enim scelesto vocabulo consentiro,
nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere." Opp. Tom. iv. col. 148, r.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 81
went before him, would ever accept of: and herein,
saith he 1 , "I plead not my own cause, but the cause
of God, of the whole Church, of the Laws, the vene
rable Councils, the commands of Christ ; which are
all disturbed with the invention of this proud pom-
patic style of Universal Bishop."
Now can any one imagine, except one prejudiced
as S. W., that the power is harmless, when the title,
that doth barely express it, is so devilish a thing?
Can any one imagine, that Saint Gregory knew him
self to be that indeed, which in word he so much
abominates? Or that he really exercised that Uni
versal authority and Universal Bishopric, though he
so prodigiously lets fly against the style of 'Universal
Bishop' ? Yet all this is said, and must be main
tained, lest we should exclude the Universal Pastor
ship out of the Primitive Church 2 .
There is a great deal of pitiful stuff used by the
Romanist upon this argument, with which I shall not
trouble the reader ; yet nothing shall be omitted that
hath any shew of argument on their side ; among
1 Ibid. ep. xxii ; [" Quia vero non causa mea, sed Dei est ; et
quia non solus ego, sed tota turbatur ecclesia, quia pise leges, quia
venerandse synodi, quia ipsa Domini nostri Jesu Christi mandata
superbi atque pompatici cujusdam sermonis inventione turbantur,"
etc. Opp. Tom. iv. col. 137, A.]
2 [See S. W.'s objections and the reply to them in Dr Ham
mond, Works, Vol. ii. pp. 294, etc. Bp Stillingfleet, in onsidering
similar objections, gives a clear account of the various meanings
attached to the title 'Universal Bishop.' The modern Church of
Rome in claiming prerogatives for the Pope makes all lawful juris
diction derivable from him. 'Vindication of Archbp Laud,' Vol. n.
pp. 214, etc.]
6
82 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
which, the words of Saint Gregory following in his
argument are most material.
Objection. Saint Gregory saith, ' The care of the whole Church
was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles,
Saint Peter ; and yet he is not called the Universal
Bishop 1 .'
Solution. It is confessed that Saint Gregory doth say that
the care of the whole is committed to Saint Peter ;
again, that he was the prince of the Apostles 2 , and yet
he was not called Universal Apostle. It is hence plain,
that his being Prince of the Apostles did not carry in
it so much as Universal Bishop; otherwise Saint Gre
gory would not have given the one, and denied him
the other ; and it is as plain that he had the care of
all Churches, and so had Saint Paul 3 ; but it is not
plain that he had power over all Churches.
Doctor Hammond 4 proceeds irresistibly to prove
the contrary from Saint Gregory himself, according
to the words of the Novel : ' If any complaint be
made,' saith he, ' against a Bishop, the cause shall be
judged before the Metropolitan, " secundum sanctas
Regulas et nostras 5 Leges" ; 'if the party stand not to
1 [" Cura ei totius ecclesise, et principatus committitur, et tamen
universalis apostolus non vocatur." Lib. iv. Indict, xi. ep. xxxii ;
Tom. iv. col. 137, B.]
2 [" Omnium apostolorum Petro principi apostolo totius ecclesicc
cura commissa est." Ibid.]
3 [2 Cor. xi. 28.]
4 [Dispatcher Dispatcht, chap. n. s. iv ; Works, Vol. n. p. 208.
The capitular in question may be seen in Gregory's Epistles, Lib. xi.
Indict, vi. ep. Ivi ; Tom. iv. col. 442, A.]
5 [i. e. 'the imperial laws;' the words being extracted from the
Emperor's Constitutions.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION'. 88
his judgment, the cause is to be brought to the
Archbishop or Patriarch of that diocese, and he
shall give it a conclusion, according to the Canons
and Laws aforesaid' ; no place left for appeal to
Rome.
Yet it must be acknowledged, Saint Gregory Objection.
adds 1 , " Si dictum fuerit, etc., where there is no
Metropolitan nor Patriarch, the cause may be heard
by the Apostolic see," which Gregory calls " the
Head of all Churches."
Now if this be allowed, what hath the Pope gained, Solution.
if perhaps such a Church should be found as hath
neither Primate nor Patriarch ? How is he the
nearer to the Universal Authority over those Churches
that have Primates of their own ; or which way will
he by this means extend his jurisdiction to us in
England, who have ever had more than one Metropo
litan ? The Archbishop of Canterbury was once ac
knowledged by a Pope to be " quasi alterius orbis
Papa 2 ".
But admitting this extraordinary case, that where
there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch there,
they are to have recourse to the see Apostolic ; it is
a greater wonder that the Romanist should insist
upon it, than that his late Grace should mention it .
1 [" Contra heec si dictum fuerit, quia nee Metropolitan! habuit
nee Patriarcham, dicendum est quia a sede Apostolica, quse omnium
ecclesiarum caput est, causa ha?c audienda ac dirimenda fuerat,"
etc. Ibid. col. 442, B.]
2 [This was the language of Urban II. to Anselm. Cf. W.
Malmesbur. de Gestis Pontif. Lib, i. p. 223, 1. 33; apud Rerum
Anglic. Scriptores ; ed. Francofurt. 1601. Numerous other titles,
equally exalted, may be seen in Twysden's Vindication, p. 22.]
62
PRESCRIPTION.
[CHAP. VI.
Objection.
Solution.
at which T. C. so much admires 1 : for this one ob
servation, with the assistance of that known rule in
Law, ' exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis,' puts a
plain and speedy end to the whole controversy. For
if recourse may be had to Rome from no other place,
but where there is neither Primate nor Patriarch,
then not from England 2 , either when Saint Gregory
laid down the rule, or ever since, and perhaps then
from no other place in the world. And indeed pro
vision was thus made against any such extraordinary
case that might possibly happen ; for it is but reason,
that where there is no Primate to appeal to, appeal
should be received somewhere else ; and where better
than at Home, which St Gregory calls Caput omnium
Ecclesiarum ? and this is the utmost advantage the
Romanist can hope to receive from the words.
But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the ' Head
of all Churches 3 '.
It is true whether he intends a primacy of fame
or visible splendour and dignity, being the seat of the
Emperor, or order and unity, is not certain : but it
is certain, he intends nothing less by it than that
which just now he denied, a supremacy of power and
universal ordinary jurisdiction ; he having, in the words
immediately foregoing, concluded all ordinary juris
diction within every proper primacy or patriarchate 4 .
1 [Cf. Stillingfleet's Vindication of Archbp Laud, Vol. n. p.
194, where CarwelFs wonder is fully explained.]
2 [See above, pp. 31, 32.]
3 [See above, p. 83, note 1.]
4 [Mr Palmer (Treatise on the Church, Part vn. chap, iii.)
enumerates the circumstances, which in the first ages of the Gospel
gave an accidental pre-eminence to the Roman Church.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 85
But, saith S. W., ' Saint Gregory practised the Objection,
thing, though he denied the word of Universal 1 '.
What hypocrisy ! damn the Title as he doth, Solution.
and yet practise the thing ! you must have good
proof.
His first instance is of the Primate of Byzacium,
wherein the Emperor first put forth his authority, and
would have him judged by Gregory : "Piissimus Im-
perator eum [jujcta statuta canonica] per nos voluit
judicari", saith Gregory 2 . Hence Doctor Hammond
smartly and soundly observes, ' that appeals from a
Primate lie to none but the supreme magistrate 3 '.
To which purpose, in the cause of Maximus Bishop
of Salona, decreed excommunicate by Gregory, his
sentence was still with this reserve and submission,
nisi prius, etc. " unless I should first understand by
my most serene Lords (the Emperors) that they com
manded it to be done 4 ".
Thus, if this ' perfect' instance (as S. W. calls it)
have any force in it, his cause is gone, whatever
advantage he pretends to gain by it.
Besides, the Emperor's command was, that Gre-
1 [Cf. Dr Hammond, Dispatcher Dispatcht, chap. v. sect. ix.
31 ; Works, Vol. n. p. 294.]
2 [Epist. Lib. vn. Indict, n. ep. Ixv; Opp. Tom. iv. col.
276, D.]
3 [ubi supra, 33.]
4 [The whole sentence is as follows : " Quod ego audiens, ad
eundem prsevaricatorem, qui inordinate ordinatus est protinus misi
ut omnino missarum solemnia celebrare nullo modo praesumeret,
nisi prius a serenissimis dominis cognoscerem, si hoc fieri ipsi
jussissent, quod ei sub excommunicationis interpositione mandavi."
Gregor. Epist. Lib. iv. Indict, xm. ep. xxxiv; Opp. Tom. iv. col.
140, c.]
86 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
gory should judge him l , juxta statuta canonica 2 ; and
Gregory himself pleads, " quicquid esset canonicum
facer emus 3 ".
Thus S. W.'s cause is killed twice by his own
'perfect' instance: for if Saint Gregory took the
judgment upon him in obedience to the Emperor,
and did proceed, and was to proceed in judging ac
cording to the Canons, where was then the universal
Monarchy ?
Yet it is confessed by Dr Hammond, which is a
full answer to all the other (not so ' perfect' instances),
" that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or
Patriarch (there being no lawful superior, who had
power over him) the injured person sometimes made
his complaint to the Bishop of Rome, as being the
most eminent person in the Church ; and in such case
he questionless might, and ought in all fraternal
charity, to admonish the Primate or Patriarch what
his duty was, and disclaim communion with him, un
less he reform 4 ".
But it ought to be shewn that Gregory did form
ally excommunicate any such Primate or Patriarch,
or juridically and authoritively act in any such cause,
without the express license of the Emperor, which
not being done, his instances are answered : besides,
1 [i. e. the Primate of Byzacium, and not the Bishop of Salona,
last mentioned.]
2 [Above, p. 85.]
3 [" Tamen piissimus imperator admonuit, ut transmitteremus,
et quicquid esset canonicum faceromus." Greg. Epist. Lib. vn.
ep. Ixv. col. 276, D.]
4 [Dispatcher Dispatcht, chap. v. sect. ix. 50 ; Works, Vol. n.
p. 296.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 87
Saint Gregory always pleads the ancient Canons,
which is far from any claim of Universal Pastorship
by Divine right, or donation of Christ to Saint Peter.
" I appeal, 1 ' saith Doctor Hammond, " to S. "W. whe
ther that were the interpretation of'secundum Canones',
and yet he knows, that no other tenure but that will
stand him in stead 1 ".
Indeed, "the unhappiness is," as the Doctor ob
serves 2 , " that such acts, at first but necessary fraternal
charity, were by ambitious men drawn into example,
and means of assuming power ; which yet as they
pretend from Christ to St Peter, on the score of
Universal Pastorship, cannot be more vehemently
prejudiced by any thing, than by these examples,
which being rightly considered, pretend no higher
than ecclesiastical Canons, and the universal Laws of
charity ; . . . but never made claim to any supremacy of
power over all Bishops by Divine institution ".
It yet appears not that Saint Gregory practised
the thing, but to avoid arrogance disclaims the name
of Universal Bishop.
T. C. against my Lord of Canterbury 3 goes ano- fObjec-
ther way to work : he grants the title, and also the
thing signified by it, to be both renounced by Saint
Gregory ; but distinguishes of the term ' Universal
Bishop' into grammatical, to the exclusion of all
others from being properly Bishops, and metaphorical,
i [Ibid. 61.] 2 [Ibid.]
3 [Labyrinthus Cantuaricnsis, p. 197. 3. In this instance, as in
a few others, the text of Fullwood reads A. C., which was the
assumed title of Fisher ; whereas the author of the Labyrinthus
(to which Stillingfleet replied) was T. C. Thomas Carwell, alias
Thorold.]
88 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
whereby the Bishops are secured, as such, in their
respective dioceses, yet all of them under the juris
diction of the Universal Bishop, viz. of Rome.
Solution. This distinction Doctor Stillingfleet } destroys, not
more elaborately than fully and perfectly : shewing,
that it is impossible Saint Gregory should under
stand the term 'Universal Bishop' in that strict
grammatical sense ; for the reason 2 why this title was
refused, was because it seemed to diminish the honour
of other Bishops, when it was offered the Bishops of
Rome in a Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops ;
who cannot be imagined to divest themselves by their
kindness of their very office, though they hazarded
somewhat of their honour. Can we think the Council,
that gave the same title to John, intended thus to
depose themselves ? How comes it to pass, that none
of John's or Cyriacus's successors did ever challenge
this title, in that literal sense, if so it was understood ?
But to waive many things impertinent, it is evi
dent Saint Gregory understood the title metaphori
cally, from the reasons he gives against it ; which
also equally serve to prove against S. W. 3 that it was
not so much the title as the authority of an Universal
Bishop, which he so much opposed.
He argueth thus to John the Patriarch : " What
wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Universal
Church in the day of judgment, who dost endeavour
1 [Vindication of Archbp Laud, Vol. n. pp. 226, et seqq.]
2 [. . . " omnium sacerdotum honor adimitur, dum ab uno sibi
dementer arrogatur," etc. Greg. Epist. Lib. iv. Indict, xm. ep.
xxxii. col. 137, E.]
3 [Above, p. 85. J
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 89
to subject all his members to thee, under the name of
Universal Bishop 1 ?"
Again, doth he not " arise to the height of singu
larity, that he is subject to none, but rules over all 2 ?"
And can you have a more perfect description of the
present Pope than is here given ? Or is it the title
or the power, that makes him subject to none, that
' rules over all ? '
Again, he imitates the 3 pride of Lucifer, endea
vouring to be Head (not sure in title, but power) of
the Church triumphant, as the Pope of the Church
militant : exalting his throne (not his name), as Gre
gory adds, above the stars of God, viz, the Bishops,
and the height of the clouds 4 .
Again, Saint " Peter was the first member of the
Church : Paul, Andrew, and John, what are they else
but Heads of particular Churches ? And yet they
are all members of the Church under one Head 5 ",
(i.e. Christ, as before 6 he had said) : we see he allows
not Peter himself to be Head of the Church. " None
that was truly holy, was ever called by that name of
1 ["Tu quid Christo, universalis sanctse ecclesiae capiti in
cxtremi judicii es dicturus examine, qui cuncta ejus membra ti-
bimet conaris universalis appellatione supponere ?" Lib. iv. Indict,
xin. ep. xxxviii; Opp. Tom. iv. col. 145, D.]
2 [. . . "ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpore ut et
nulli subesse, et solus omnibus prscesse videretur?" Ibid.J
3 [Ibid.]
4 [Ibid. Gregory here quotes Isaiah xiv. 12 15.]
5 [" Certe Petrus apostolus primum membrum sanctse et univer
salis ecclesise est. Paulus, Andreas, Johannes, quid aliud quam
singularium sunt plebium capita ? Et tamen sub uno capite omnes
membra sunt ecclesirc." Ibid. col. 146, A.]
6 [Above, note 1.]
90 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
Universal Bishop l : " which he makes to be the same
with the Head of the Church.
But lastly, suppose St Gregory did mean, that
this title in its strict grammatical sense was to be
abhorred, and not as metaphorically taken. What
hath the Pope gained, who at this day bears that title
in the highest and strictest sense imaginable ? as the
Doctor 2 proves ; and indeed [it] needs no proof, being
evident of itself, and to the observation of the whole
world. Thus all the hard words of St Gregory ut
tered so long agon, against such as admitted or
desired that title, unavoidably fall upon the modern
Roman Bishops, that take upon them to be the sole
Pastors of the Church ; and say that they are OEcu-
menical Bishops, and that all jurisdiction is derived
from them. They are ' Lucifers ' and ' Princes of
Pride'; using a 'vain, new, rash, foolish, proud, pro
fane, erroneous, wicked, hypocritical, singular, pre
sumptuous, blasphemous, name;' as that holy Pope
inveighed against it. Moreover, as he also adds, 'they
transgress God's laws, violate the Canons, dishonour
the Church, despise their brethren, and cause Schism' 3 .
Objection. But it is said 4 , that ' Pope Victor excommunicated
the Asian Churches all at once. Therefore (saith
A. C.) the Pope had of right some authority over the
1 [. . . " quo (nomine) vocari nullus prsesumpsit, qui veracitcr
sanctus fuit." Ibid.]
2 [Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. n. pp. 232, et seqq.]
3 [Cf. Lib. iv. epp. 32, 34, 36, 38, 39 ; Lib. vi. epp. 24, 28, 30, 31 ;
Lib. vu. ep. 70 ; passim.]
4 [See Archbp Laud's Conference with Fisher, sect. xxv. 13,
p. 150. ed. Oxf. 1839 ; and Bp Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. n.
pp. 238, 239.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 91
Asian Bishops, and by consequence over the whole
Church ; and this appears in that Irenaeus, in the
name of the Gallican Bishops, writes to Victor not to
proceed so rashly in this action ; as appears in Euse-
bius '.
(1) We answer, that those Bishops among whom Solution.
Irenseus was one, did severely rebuke that Pope for
offering to excommunicate those Asian Churches l :
therefore they did not believe him to be the supreme,
infallible Pastor of the whole Church.
(2) His letters declaring that excommunication,
not pleasing all his own Bishops, they countermanded 2
him : surely not thinking him to be what Popes
would now be esteemed.
(3) Hence Cardinal Perron is angry with Euse-
bius, and calls him an Arian, and an enemy to the
Church of Rome ; for hinting, that though the Pope
did declare them excommunicate, yet it took no effect,
because other Bishops continued still in communion
with them 3 .
(4) But the force of the whole argument leans
upon a plain mistake of the ancient discipline, both
in the nature, and the root or ground of it.
For the nature of ancient excommunication, espe- Mistake of
the Nature
cially when practised by one Church against another, and Root
did not imply a positive act of authority, but a nega- piine.
tive act of charity ; or a declaring against the com
munion of such with themselves ; and therefore was
1 [$epoi>Tttt 8e Kal at rovrcov (pcwal, ir\r]KTiK.u>T(pov
rov EiKTopos. 'Ei> ofy Kai 6 Eiprjvaios, K. T. X. Euseb. Hist. Eccl.
Lib. v. c. 24. Tom. i. p. 369 ; ed. Oxon. 1838.]
2 ['\vrnrapaKf\fvovTai ST/TO airw, K. T. X. Ibid.]
3 [Cardinal du Perron's Reply to the King of Groat Britain,
Book H. chap. vi. p. 163, Engl. Transl. Douay, 1630.]
92 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP VI.
done by equals to equals, and sometimes by inferiors
to superiors. In equals, thus, Johannes Antiochenus 1 ,
in the Ephesine Council, excommunicated Cyril, Pa
triarch of Alexandria ; and in inferiors (in the sense
of our Roman adversaries) for the African Bishops
excommunicated Pope Vigilius 2 . Hence also, Acacius 3 ,
the Patriarch of Constantinople, expunged the name
of Felix, Bishop of Rome, out of the diptychs of the
Church ; and Hilary anathematized Pope Liberius 4 .
Therefore Victor's declaring the Asian Churches to be
excommunicate, is no argument of his power over them.
Secondly, the root or ground of the ancient dis
cipline is also as plainly mistaken, which was not
authority always, but care and charity. Care, I say,
not only of themselves who used it, but also of the
Church that was censured, and indeed of the whole
Church.
It is here proper to consider, that though Bishops
had their peculiar seats, and limits for their jurisdic-
1 [The circumstances are fully related by Fleury, Histoire
Eccles. Liv. xxv. s. 45.]
2 Victor Tununensis, Chronicon, p. 10, [col. 1 ; apud Thesaur.
Temporum, opera J. Scaliger. Amstelod. 1658 : " Post consulatum
Basilii, v. c. anno x. Africani antistites Vigilium Romanum epi-
scopum damnatorem m. Capitulorum synodaliter a Catholica
communione, reservato ei pcenitentise loco, recludunt," etc. Cf.
Fleury, Liv. xxxm. s. 26, 32. In the sixth General Council, Hono-
rius, Bishop of Rome, was anathematized as a Monothelite. See
Bingham, Antiquities, Book xvi. chap. iii. s. 12, and Dr Routh's
Opuscula, Vol. n. p. 153, and notes.]
3 [Fleury, Hist. Eccl. Liv. xxx. s. 17-]
4 [" Iterum tibi anathema et tertio, prsevaricator Liberi ! "
Fragment. S. Hilar. ; Opp. coll. 426, 427; ed. Paris. 1631. See
Bower's 'Lives of the Popes,' Vol. i. pp. 136, 137. Lond. 1748. The
Abbe Fleury makes no attempt to deny the apostasy of Liberius.
" II renon^a a la communion de saint Athanase, et embrassa cello
dcs Orientaux, c'est-a-dire, des Ariens." Hist. Eccl. Liv. xin. s. 46.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 93
tions, yet they had all a charitive inspection and care
of that Universal Church, and sometimes denomina
tions accordingly.
Hence we deny not that the ancient Bishops of
Home deservedly gained the title of (Ecumenical
Bishops, a thing of so great moment in the contro
versy, that, if well considered, might advance very far
towards the ending of it. For so the title hath been
given to others, as well as the Bishop of Rome ; and
therefore, it could not argue any authority peculiar to
him. Also the same universal care of the Church
(the occasion of the title) hath been acknowledged in
others as well as in him ; and indeed the power, which
is the root of that care, as the occasion of that title,
is founded in all Bishops.
Here are three things noted, which may be dis- Three
. , . , , Notes.
tinctly considered.
(1) Power is given to all Bishops with an imme
diate respect to the good of the whole Church ; so
that if it were possible, that every particular Bishop
could take care of the whole Church, they have
authority enough in their function to do it, though
it be impossible, and indeed inconsistent with peace
and order, that all should undertake it. And there
fore they have their bounds and limits set them ; hence
their particular dioceses : therefore, as St Cyprian,
' there is but one Bishopric in the whole world, a part
of which is held by every Bishop 1 '.
1 [" Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars
tenetur." De Unitate Ecclesise, cap. v. ' In solidum' is a law-phrase,
and signifies that part of this one episcopacy is so committed to
every single bishop, that he is nevertheless charged with taking
care of the whole. Leslie's Answer to the Bp of Meaux: Works,
Vol. m. p. 231; Oxf. 1832.]
9-t PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
(2) Thus we find in the primitive Church, that
every Bishop had his particular charge, yet they still
regarded the common good ; extending their care
(the second thing observed) sometimes beyond their
own division, by their counsel and direction, yea,
and exercised their functions sometimes in other
places. Of which Dr Stillingfleet 1 gives many in
stances in Polycarp, Ignatius, IrensBus, St Cyprian,
Faustus.
Yea, upon this very ground, Nazianzen 2 saith of
St Cyprian, that ' he not only governed the Churches
of Carthage, but all the western parts, and even
almost all the eastern, southern, and northern too, as
far as he went'.
Arsenius speaks more home to Athanasius 3 : " We
embrace (saith he) peace and unity with the Catholic
Church, over which, thou, through the grace of God,
dost preside". Whence Gregory Nazianzen 4 saith of
Athanasius, that 'he made laws for the whole earth'.
And St Basil 5 writes to him, 'that he had care of all
the Churches as of his own'; and calls him ' the Head
and Chief of all'.
And St Chrysostom 6 in the praise of Eustathius,
1 Rational Account, pp. 424, 425 ; [Vol. n. p. 216, new edit.]
2 Orat. xvm. p. 281, [A. Opp. Paris. 1619 ; Ov yap rfjs Kapxn-
Soviaiv TrpoKadffTai fiovov (KK\r](Tias, . oXXa Kai 7raa-r)s rrjs e&Trepiov,
K. T. A.]
3 Athanas. ad Imperator. Constant. Apol. [Opp. Tom. i. p.
786, D. Kai r/p-els d<nra6p.fvoi TTJV flp^vrjv Kai tvuxriv Trpos Trjv
Kcido\iKr)t> fKK\r)(riav, qs <rv KOTO \apiv Qeov Trpoiorao-at, K. r. X.]
4 Orat. XXI. p. 392, [c : vopoQfTfi 8e TJ; oiKovpevrj TTO\IV.]
s Ep. MI. [Opp. Tom. m. p. 79 ; ed. Paris. 1638.]
6 Opp. Tom. v. p. 631. ed. Savil. [Tom. n. 607, B. ed. Paris.
1718 ; Knl yap rfv Trcrraidevfjitvos Ka\a>s irapa TTJS TOV Ilveii/iaras
Xapiros, on TTJS KK\r)(Ti(is irpof(rTO>Ta OVK (Kfivrjs p.6vr)s Kri
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 95
the Patriarch of Antioch, saith, that ' he was in
structed by the Divine Spirit, that he was not only to
have care of that Church over which he was set, but
of the whole Church throughout the world'.
Now what is this but to say in effect, these great
men were Universal Bishops, though indeed, they none
of them had power of jurisdiction over any Church
but their own ; as, notwithstanding the general care
of the ancient good Bishops of Rome, had of the
good of the whole and their influence and reverence
in order thereunto the Bishops of Rome had not.
(3) Upon the former ground and occasion, some
Bishops in the most famous Churches had the honour
of the title of CEcumenical or Universal Bishops.
But here we must confess, the Bishops of Rome
had the advantage, being the most famous of all ;
both by reason of their own primitive merit, and the
glory of the empire, especially the latter.
The Roman empire was itself accounted ' Uni
versal'; and the greatness of the empire advanced
the Church to the same title, and consequently the
Bishops of that Church above others.
1. That the Roman empire was so, appears by a
multitude of testimonies, making orbis Romanus and
orbis humanus synonymous, collected by Dr Stilling-
fleet 1 . Hence Ammianus Marcellinus calls Rome
caput mundi, 'the head of the World'; and the Roman
Senate Asylum mundi totius. And it was usual then
to call whatever was out of the Roman empire bar-
dXXa Ka! TTCHTT^S rfjs Kara TTJV oiKov/j,evr]v Mififvrjs. Other proofs of
this position may be seen in Bingham, Book n. chap, v.]
1 Rational Account, pp. 425, 420 : [Vol. n. pp. 218, 219. new oil.]
96 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
baria, as the same Doctor ' proves at large. Therefore
that empire was called in Greek j oiKov/jLevt)*.
2. Some Bishops in the great Churches in the
Roman empire were called (Ecumenical, as that re
lates to the Y\ oiKovfjievrj, viz. the Roman empire. This
appears because the very ground of the advancement of
the Patriarch of Constantinople was the greatness of
the city, as appears in the Councils of Constantinople
andChalcedon 3 about it; and the privileges of old Rome
gave the measure of the privileges of new Rome.
And in probability, the ground of that Patriarch's
usurping the title of (Ecumenical Patriarch was but
to correspond with the greatness of his city, which
was then the seat of the empire ; as Dr Stillingfleet
very reasonably conjectures 4 .
Moreover, all the three Patriarchs of Alexandria,
Antioch, and Constantinople, had expressions given
them tantamount to that title : ' the government of
the whole world', 'the care of all the Churches', 'the
government as it were of the whole body of the
Church', as Dr Stillingfleet 5 particularly shews. But
most clear and full to that purpose, as he observes, is
the testimony of Theodoret concerning Nestorius
being made Patriarch of Constantinople : " He was
intrusted with the government of the Catholic Church
of the orthodox at Constantinople, and thereby of the
whole world 6 ".
i Ibid. 2 Acts xi. 28. [Luke ii. 1]
3 [See above, p. 35, note 1.]
4 [Vol. n. p. 219. Ct Bingham, Book n. chap. xvii. s. 21.]
* [Ibid.]
c Theodor. Hseret. Fabul. Lib. iv. c. 12; Opp. Tom. iv. p. 245.
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 97
Where shall we find so illustrious a testimony for
the Bishop of Borne ? Or, if we could, we see it
would prove nothing peculiar to him.
Therefore, if the Council of Chalcedon 1 did offer
the title of Universal Patriarch, or if they did
not, but as the truth rather is, some papers, re
ceived in that Council, did give him that title,
it signifieth nothing to prove the Pope's universal
authority.
Therefore Simon Vigorius 2 ingenuously confesseth,
that ' when the Western Fathers call the Koman
Bishops Bishops of the universal Church, they do it
from the custom of their Churches, not that they
look on them as Universal Bishops of the whole
Church, but in the same sense, that the Patriarchs of
Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, are
called so ; or as they are universal over the Churches
under their own patriarchate ; or that in CEcumenical
Councils, they preside over the whole Church : ' and
after acknowledgeth, that the title of Universal or
CEcumenical Bishop makes nothing for the Pope's
Monarchy.
It is too evident, that the humble Pope Gregory
seems to glorify himself, while he so often mentions
[A. ed. 1642:...r)}ff /caret Kwvo-TavTivovrroXiv ra>v opdodogav KadoXiKfjs
fKK\rj(rias rrfv Trpofbpiav Trioreverat, ovfiei/ 8e ^TTOV KOI rfjs oiKovfj,fvrjs
a.TTaa'TjsJ]
1 [Gregory (Epist. Lib. iv. Indict, xm. ep. xxxii.) speaks as if
this title was formally offered and declined. The true state of the
case is somewhat different, as Bishop Stillingfleet shews from the
Acts of the Council. 'Vindication;' Vol. n. pp. 220, 221.]
2 Comment, ad Resp. Synodal. Concil. Basil, p. 37 ; [quoted by
Stillingfleet, Vol. n. p. 221.]
7
98 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
that offer of the title of Universal, and his refusing
of it, and inveighing against it ; and that these were
engines used by him to deprive others of the same
title, if not to advance his own see to the power
signified by it ; though if he did indeed design any
such thing, it is an argument that he was ashamed
openly to claim or own it, while he rails against the
title (in the effects of it, which depended upon the
power itself) as such an abominable thing.
However, if the Council of Chalcedon did indeed
offer (or only record) that title to Gregory, it is more
than manifest, it could not possibly be intended to
carry in it the authority of the whole Church, or any
more than that qualified sense of Vigorius before
mentioned ; because other Patriarchs had the same
title, and we see no reason to believe, that that
Council intended to subject themselves and all Patri
archs to the authority of the Western Pope, contrary
to their great design of advancing the see of Con
stantinople to equal privileges with that of Rome ; as
appears by their fifteenth Session, Canon xxvui, and
their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo 1 .
Thus the bare title is no argument, and by what
hath been said touching the grandeur of the Roman
empire, and the answerable greatness and renown of
the Roman Church, frequent recourse had unto it
from other Churches, for counsel and assistance, is of
* [See this letter in Labbe, Concil. Tom iv. 834, et seqq. Leo
opposed the twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon, on the plea that it
violated the sixth Nicene Canon, which gave the second rank to
Alexandria. Notwithstanding his opposition, the Canon stood its
ground.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 99
no more force to conclude her supremacy, nor any
matter of wonder at all.
Experience teacheth us that it is and will be so in
all cases ; not only a renowned Lawyer, Physician,
but Divine, shall have great resort, and almost uni
versal addresses. An honest and prudent countryman
shall be upon all commissions ; the Church of Eome
was then famous both for learning, wisdom, truth,
piety, and I may add tradition itself, as well as great
ness, both in the eye of the world and all other
Churches ; and her zeal and care for general good,
keeping peace, and spreading the grace of the Gospel,
was sometimes admirable. And now no wonder that
applications in difficult cases were frequently and
generally made hither, which at first were received
and answered with love and charity, though soon after
the ambition of Popes knew how to advance, and
hence to assume authority.
From this, we see, it was no great venture (how
ever T. C. term it), for Archbishop Laud to grapple
with the authority of Irenseus, who saith l , ' To this
Church (meaning Rome) propter potentiorem principa-
litatem, for the more powerful principality of it, it is
necessary that every Church, that is the faithful
undique, should have recourse ; in qua semper ab his
qui sunt undique conservata est ea quce est ab Apostolis
traditio.'
1 [Adv. Hseres.] Lib. in. c. 3. [Tertullian has a similar passage
(De Prsescriptione, cap. xxxvi.) where he refers the disputant, if in
Achaia, to Corinth ; if in proconsular Asia, to Ephesus ; if in Italy
or Africa, to Rome ; all these being apostolical Churches, and
therefore likely to have retained the true doctrine. See Dr Routh's
Opuscula, Vol. i. p. 151, and note, p. 206.]
72
100 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
His lordship seems to grant the whole, Rome
being then the imperial city, and so a Church of
more powerful authority than any other, yet not the
head of the Church Universal. This may suffice
without the pleasant criticizing about undique, with
which, if you have a mind to be merry, you may
entertain yourself in Dr Stillingfleet 1 .
But indeed A. C. is guilty of many mistakes in
reasoning, as well as criticizing : he takes it for
granted, that this principality is attributed by Irenseus
here to Home, as the Church, not as the city. (2)
That the necessity arising hence was concerning the
Faith, and not secular affairs ; neither of which is
certain, or in likelihood true 2 .
Besides, if both were granted, the necessity is not
such as supposeth duty or authority in the faithful, or
in Rome ; but (as the sense makes evident) a neces
sity of expedience, Rome being most likely to give
satisfaction touching that tradition about which that
dispute was.
Lastly, the principality here implies not proper
authority, or power to decide the controversy : one
kind of authority it doth imply, but not such as
T. C. inquired for, not the authority of a governor,
but of a conservator ; of a conservator of that truth,
that being made known by her, might reasonably end
the quarrel ; not of an absolute governor, that might
command the Faith, or the agreement of the dis
senters. This is evident, (1) Because the dispute
was about a matter of fact, whether there was any
1 p. 441, etc. [Vol. ii. pp. 243, ct seqq. new edit.]
2 p. 444, [Vol. II. p. 247.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 101
such tradition or not, as the Valentinians pretended.
(2) Because Irenseus refers them to Rome under this
reason, conservata est, ' the Apostolical traditions are
kept there/ being brought by the faithful undique
thither ; and therefore brought thither, because of
the more principality of the city all persons resorted
thither.
Lastly, it is acknowledged that Pope Gregory 1 objection.
doth say, that ' if there be any fault in Bishops, it is
subject to the Apostolical see ; but when their fault
doth not exact it, that then upon the account of
humility all were his equals.'
Indeed, this smells of his ambition and design Solution.
before spoken of; but if there be any truth in it, it
must agree with the Canon Saint Gregory himself
records, and suppose the faulty Bishop hath no proper
Primate or Patriarch to judge him ; also with the
proceeding then before him, and suppose complaint
to the Emperor, and the Emperor's subjecting the
cause to the Apostolical see ; as that cause was by
Saint Gregory's own confession 2 .
However what he seems here to assume to his
own see, he blows away with the same breath, deny
ing any ordinary jurisdiction and authority to be in
that see over all Bishops, while he supposes a fault
necessary to their subjection, and that while there is
no fault all are equal : which is not true, where by
1 [Gregor. Epist. Lib. vn. Indict. H. ep. Ixv. col. 276, E : "Nam
quod sc dicit sedi Apostolicse subjici, si qua culpa in Episcopis
invcnitur, nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit. Cum vcro
culpa non cxigit, omncs secundum rationem humilitatis fcquales
sunt."]
2 [See above, p. 85.]
102 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
a lawful standing ordinary government there is an
eternal necessity of superiority and inferiority.
But of this I had spoken before, had I thought
(as I yet do not) that there is any weight or con
sequence in the words.
Further evidence, that the ancient Popes them
selves, though they might thirst after it, did not
believe that they were Universal Bishops and Mo-
narchs over the whole Church, and that they did not
pretend to it in any such manner as to make the
world believe it; I say, further evidence of this,
ariseth from their acknowledged subjection to the
civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs.
Pope Leo 1 beggeth the Emperor Theodosius
with tears, 'that he would command' (not permit) 'a
Council to be held in Italy:' that sure was not to
signify his authoritative desires.
That instance of Pope Agatho 2 , in his Epistle to
the Emperor, is as pertinent as the former ; " with
praise we admire your purpose well pleasing to God"
(not to the Pope), and " for these commands of yours
we are rejoiced, and with groans out of the depth of
our heart give thanks to God." And many such,
Doctor Hammond 3 saith, might be afforded.
1 [Epist. Decretal, xxiv; Opp. p. 114. col. 2, D; ed. Paris. 1637:
" Omnes partium nostrarum Ecclesise, omnes mansuetudinis vestrse
cum gemitibus et lachrymis supplicant sacerdotes, ut...generalem
synodum jubeatis intra Italiam celebrari," etc.]
2 Concil. Tom. v. pp. 60, 61. [ed. Bin. Paris. 1636 : 'Errel Se
fvcrfftfcrTaToi KOI avdpeioraroi /3acriAoi> TTJS <re/3acr/iii'as vp.coi> eva-ffifias
(rvv eiraivta 6avp.dfriJ.fv TTJV Btapfcrrov Trp66f<riv . . . tXaptvo/jLevoi Trtpl rfjs
Toiavrrjs fiia-f^ovs TrpoOecreas, fJ-tra rv>v fK fiadovs rfjs Kapbias o8vpp.a>v
3 [Works, Vol. n. p. 290, $ 5.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 103
Pope Gregory received the power of hearing and
determining causes several times (as he himself con-
fesseth) from the Emperor ; as we shewed before l .
Hence Pope Eleutherius 2 to King Lucius, " You
are the Vicar of Christ :" the same in effect which
is contained in the laws of Edward the Confessor 3 .
And Pope Urban 4 the Second entertained our
Archbishop Anselm, in the Council of Bari, with the
title of the Pope of another world, or (as some relate
it) the ' Apostle of another world, and a Patriarch
worthy to be reverenced.'
Now when the Bishops of Rome did acknowledge
that the civil magistrate had power to command the
assembling of General Councils, and to command
Popes themselves to hear and determine ecclesi
astical causes ; when they acknowledged the King
of England to be the Vicar of Christ, and the Arch
bishop of Canterbury Pope of another world; we
may, I think, safely conclude that whatever they
thought of the primacy of dignity, they did not
believe themselves, or give occasion to others to
believe, that they had then the jurisdiction of Eng
land, much less of the whole world.
Indeed, the power of Emperors over Popes was
exercised severely, and continued long in practice 5 .
1 [See above, p. 85.]
2 [For the reply attributed to Eleutherius, see Collier, Eccles.
Hist. Book i. cent, i: Vol. I. p. 14; ed. Lond. 1708.]
3 [Leges Edw. Confess. xvn ; in ' Ancient Laws and Insti
tutes,' ed. Thorpe, Vol. I. p. 449.]
* [Vid. W. Malmesbur. in Anselm. p. 223, 1. 33 ; ed. Francof.
1601 ; Archbp Laud's Conference with Fisher, sect. xxv. $ x. p.
141, ed. Oxf. 1839.]
5 Vid. King James's Defence [of the right of Kings ; Works,
104 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
A. D. 654, Constantius bound and banished Pope Martin
A. D. 963, Otho rejected Pope John XIII. and made
Leo VIII. Pope : and John XIV., Gregory V. and
Sylvester II. were made Popes by the Otho's. A.D.
1007, Henry II. deposed three Popes. This practice
is confessed till Gregory VII. ; and before A. D. 679,
Popes submitted to Emperors by purchasing their
investitures of them, by submissive terms, and bow
ing the knee before them.
SECTION VIII.
NOR THE WORDS OF THE IMPERIAL LAW.
IF the ancient Councils, or practice, or Popes
themselves, offered nothing to persuade our an
cestors to a belief of the Pope's universal power or
possession of England, certainly we may despair of
finding any such thing in the ancient Laws of the
Church ; which are justly presumed to contain the
sense and rule of all. " Were all other records of
antiquity silent," saith our late Primate 1 , "the Civil
Law is proof enough :" for that is a monument of
the Primitive Church ; and not only so, it being the
Imperial, as well as Canon Law, it gives us the reason
and Law both of the Church and the whole world.
Now what saith the Law? It first forbids the
title, and then the practice.
pp. 408, 409. ed. Lond. 1616. These and other similar instances
are there related on the authority of Platina, Baronius, and
Sigebert of Gemblours.]
1 [Archbp Laud, Conference with Fisher, sect. xxv. $ x. p. 141.
ed. 1839.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 105
Primce sedis Apostolus, ' the Patriarch or Bishop
of the first see,' is not to be called Prince of the
Priests or Supreme Priest 1 , nor, as the African Canon
adds, aliquid hnjusmodi, ' any other thing of that
kind 2 .'
The practice of any such power was expressly
forbidden, and not the proud title only : the very
text of the Law saith, a Patriarcha non datur Ap-
pellatio, ' from a Patriarch there lies no appeal 3 .'
And this we have found agreeable to the Milevi-
tan Council 4 (where Saint Augustine was present),
forbidding under pain of excommunication any ap
peal to any foreign Councils or Judicatures : and
this is again consonant to the fifth Canon of Nice 5 ,
as that was to the thirty-fourth Apostolic 6 , where
the Primate in every nation is to be accounted their
head.
Now what do our adversaries say to this ? Indeed
they seem to be put to it ; and though their wits are very
pregnant to deliver many answers (such as they be)
in most cases, they all seem to join in one poor slight
evasion here ; namely, that ' the Laws concerning
appeals did only concern inferior Clergymen, but
Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome, even by the
1 Corpus Juris Canon. Dccrct. Part i. Distinct, xcix. c. in.
[" Primse sedis Episcopus non appellctur princeps saccrdotum, vcl
summus sacerdos."]
2 [Ibid.]
3 Cod. Thcodos. Lib. i. Tit. iv. $ 29 ; Authent. Collat, ix. Tit.
xv. c. 22.
1 Can. xxn ; [Labbtj, Concil. Tom. 11. 1542.]
' [Labbc, Concil. Tom. n. 32, A.]
6 [Patres Apostol. cd. Cotolcr. Tom. i. p. 442.]
106 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
African Canon, and acknowledged in that Council's
Epistle to Pope Boniface.'
Three bold sayings : (1) that the Law concerned
not the appeals of Bishops. (2) The Council of
Africa decreed Bishops' appeals to Rome. (3) And
acknowledged it in their Letter to Pope Boniface.
But are these things as truly as boldly said? For
the first which is their comment, whereby they would
restrain the sense of the Laws, to the exclusion of
the Bishops, we shall consider their ground for it,
and then propose our reason, and the Law expressly
against it ; and then their reasons will need little
answer.
Objection. They say the Law reacheth not the difference
between Patriarchs themselves.
Solution. B U jf there should happen a difference betwixt
a Patriarch and the Pope, who shall decide that ?
Both these inconveniences are plainly solved by re
ferring all such extraordinary difficulties to a General
Council.
But why should the Law allow foreign appeals
to Bishops and not to Priests ? Are all Bishops Pa
triarchs ? Is not a Patriarch over his Bishops, as well
as a Bishop over his Priests ? May not the gravamen
of a Priest be given by his Bishop, or the difference
among Priests be as considerable 1 to the Church
sometimes as among Bishops ? Or hath not the Uni
versal Pastor, if the Pope be so, power over and care
1 Cselestius [who went to Rome] denied the necessity of grace,
[and for his Pelagianism had been previously condemned by two
Synods held at Carthage in A. D. 412, and 416. Labbe, Concil. Tom.
II. 1510, 1533.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 107
of Priests as well as Bishops ? Or can the Summum
Imperium receive limits from Canon or Law? To
say, that Priests are forbidden to appeal, but the
Pope is not forbidden to receive their Appeals, is
plainly to cripple the Law, and to make it yield to
all the inconveniences of foreign appeals against its
true end.
But what if this very Canon, they pretend to
allow appeals from Bishops to Rome, do expressly
forbid that very thing it is brought to allow ? And
it doth so undeniably, as appears in the authentic
collection of the African Canons l ; non provocent ad
transmarina judicia, sed ad primates suarum provin-
ciarum, aut ad universale Concilium, sicut et de Episcopis
scepe constitutum est. The same thing ' had often been
determined in the case of Bishops.'
Perron 2 and others say, ' this clause was not in objection,
the ancient Milevitan Canons. 3
Have they nothing else but this groundless con- Solution.
ceit to support their universal Pastorship against
express Law, for four hundred years after Christ?
Sure it behoved highly to produce a true authentic
copy of those Canons, wherein that clause is omit
ted ; which because they do not, we conclude they
cannot.
However, it is manifest, that the same thing against
appeals of Bishops to Rome had been often deter
mined, by far greater testimony than the bare asser-
1 [Vid. Cod. Canon. Eccles. African, can. xxvin ; apud Labb.
Concil. Tom. n. 1064, B.]
2 [Reply to King James, Book in. chap. x. pp. 329, et seqq.
English Transl. Douay. 1630.]
108 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
tion of Perron and his partners, viz. that general
Council of Carthage, A.D. 419, about three years after
that Milevitan. At the end of the first Session, they
reviewed the Canons of the seventeen lesser Councils,
which Justellus mentions ; and wherein, no doubt,
that point had been often determined ; and out of
. them all composed that Codex canonum Ecclesice
Africance, with that clause inserted ; as appears both
in the Greek and many ancient Latin copies, and
was so received and pleaded by the Council of
Rheims, as Hincmarus proves as well as others 1 .
Gratian confesseth it, but adds this antidote 2 ,
Nisi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit, i.e. ' none shall
appeal to Rome (the main design of this Council)
except they do appeal to Rome ;' not expounding
the Canon, but exposing himself and that excellent
Council.
Objection. But T. C. urgeth 3 the Epistle of that Council to
Boniface (as was before noted), and thence proves
that the Council acknowledged, that Bishops had
power in their own cause to appeal to Rome.
Solution. it i s true, they do say 4 that, in a letter written
a year before to Zosimus, they had granted liberty to
Bishops to appeal to Rome. This is true, but scarce
honest, the next words in the letter spoil the argu
ment and the sport too : for they further say 5 , that
1 [These particulars are abridged from Bp Stillingfleet, Vindi
cation, Vol. n. p. 188, who states them on the authority of Justel's
Preface to the Codex Canonum Eccl. African.]
2 [Apud Labb. Concil. Tom. n. 1554, A.]
3 [Stillingflcet's Vindication, Vol. n. p. 190.]
4 [Epist. ad Bonif. apud Labb. Concil. Tom. n. 1140, c, D.]
^ [Ibid. 1141, c.j
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 109
because the Pope contended that the appeals of
Bishops were contained in the Nicene Canons, they
were contented to yield that it should be so, till the
true Canons were produced.
Now what can the reader desire to put an eternal
end to this controversy and consequently to the
claim of the Universal Pastor in this age but an
account of the judgment of this Council, when they
had received the copy of the Nicene Canons (on
which the point depended) out of the East.
This you have in that excellent Epistle of theirs
to Pope Coelestine, who succeeded Boniface ; and the
elaborate Dr Stillingfleet l , who searcheth all things
to the bottom, hath transcribed it at large, as a worthy
monument of antiquity, and of very great light in
the present controversy. To him I shall refer the
reader for the whole, and only note some few ex
pressions to the purpose.
'We' (say they) 'earnestly beseech you to admit
no more into your Communion those whom we have
cast out : for your reverence will easily perceive that
this is forbid in the Council of Nice. For if this be
taken care for, as to the inferior Clergy and Laity,
how much more would it have it to be observed in
Bishops?... The Decrees of Nice have subjected both
the inferior Clergy and Bishops to their Metropolitans ;
for they have most wisely and justly provided, that
every business be determined in the place where it
began... Especially seeing that it is lawful to every
one, if he be offended, to appeal to the Council of the
1 Rational Account, pp. 410, 411 ; [Vol. n. pp. 191, et seqq. ;
new edit.]
110 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
province, or even to an universal Council. ... Or how
can a judgment made beyond the sea be valid, to
which the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be
brought, by reason &c. For this sending of men to
us from your holiness, we do not find it commanded
by any Synod of the Fathers. And as for that which
you did long since send to us by Faustinus, our fellow
Bishop, as belonging to the Council of Nice, we could
not find it in the truest copies, sent by holy Cyril our
colleague, Bishop of Alexandria, and by the venerable
Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople ; which also we
sent to your predecessor Boniface, &c....Take heed
also of sending to us any of your clerks for ex
ecutors to those who desire it, lest we seem to bring
the swelling pride of the world into the Church of
Christ.... And concerning our brother Faustinus (Api-
arius being now for his wickedness cast out of the
Church of Christ,) we are confident that our brotherly
love continuing... Africa shall no more be troubled
with him.'
This is the sum of that famous Epistle : the Pope
and the African Fathers referred the point in dif
ference to the true Canons of the Nicene Council,
the Canons determine against the Pope, and from the
whole story it is inferred evidently,
(1) That Pope Boniface himself implieth his ju
risdiction was limited by the General Council of Nice,
and that all the Laity and Clergy too (except Bishops)
that lived beyond the seas, and consequently in Eng
land, were exempted from his jurisdiction by that
Council.
(2) Pope Boniface even then, when he made his
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. Ill
claim and stood upon his terms with the African
Fathers, pleads nothing for the appeals of transmarine
Bishops to Eome, but the allowance of the Council of
Nice, no ' Tu es Petrus ' then heard of.
(3) Then it seems the practices of Popes them
selves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient
Canons and Laws of the Church.
(4) The African Fathers declared the Pope fal
lible and actually mistaken, both as to his own power
and sense of the Council ; proving substantially that
neither authority from Councils, nor any foundation
in justice, equity or order of government, or public
conveniency, will allow or suffer such appeals to
Rome ; and that the Pope had no authority to send
Legates to hear causes in such cases.
All these things lie so obviously in prejudice both
of the Pope's possession and title, as Universal Pastor
at that time, both in his own and the Church's sense,
that to apply them further would be to insult ; which
I shall forbear, seeing Baronius is so ingenuous as to
confess, there are some 'hard things' in this Epistle,
and Perron hath hereupon exposed his wit with so
much sweat and so little purpose, but his own cor
rection and reproach, as Dr Stillingfleet notes 1 .
Yet we may modestly conclude from this one
plain instance, that the sense of the Nicene Council
was defined by the African Council, to be against the
Pope's supremacy, and consequently they did not
submit to it nor believe it ; and a further consequence
to our purpose is, that then the Catholic Church did
1 [Vindication, Vol. n. p. 198.]
112 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
not universally own it: i.e. the Pope's supremacy
then had not possession of the faith of the whole
Church. For as T. C. maintains 1 , the Africans, not
withstanding the contest in the sixth Council of
Carthage, 'were always in true Catholic Communion
with the Eoman Church, even during the term of this
pretended separation :' and Ccelestine himself saith,
that Saint Augustine, one of those Fathers, ' lived and
died in the Communion of the Roman Church 2 .'
SECTION IX.
THE CONCLUSION TOUCHING POSSESSION
ANCIENTLY.
TT^E hope it is now apparent enough, that the
Pope's supremacy had no possession in England
from the beginning, or for the first six hundred years,
either de facto or in fide. Our ancestors yielded not
to it ; they unanimously resisted it, and they had no
reason to believe it, either from the Councils or
practice of the Church, or from the edicts and rules
of the imperial Law, or the very sayings of the Popes
themselves.
Thus Samson's hair, the strength and pomp of
their best plea, is cut off. The foundation of the
Pope's supremacy is subverted, and all other pleas
broken with it.
If, according to the Apostles' Canons 3 , 'every
1 [Labyrinthus Cantuar.] p. 191. [ 6.]
2 [Labyr. ubi supra; and Bp Stillingfleet's Vindication, p. 202.]
3 [Can. xxxiu. al. xxxv ; apud Coteler. Tom. i. p. 442.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 113
nation had its proper head in the beginning-, to be
acknowledged by them under God'; and according
to a General Council 1 , all such heads should hold as
from the beginnings there can be no ground after
wards for a lawful possession to the contrary.
If 'Tu es Petrus' and 'Pasce oves' have any force
to maintain the Pope's Supremacy, why did not the
ancient Fathers, the authors of those Canons, see it ?
Why was not it shewn by the Popes concerned, in
bar against them, when nothing else could be pleaded ?
When both possession and tradition were to be
begun, and had not yet laid their foundation ? Yea,
when actual opposition in England was made against
it ; when General Councils abroad laid restraints upon
it; and the Eastern Church would not acknowledge
O
it.
Indeed, both antiquity, universality, and tradition
itself, and all colour of right for ever, fails with pos
session.
For possession of supremacy, afterwards, cannot
possibly have either a Divine or just title, but must
lay its foundation contrary to God's institution and
ecclesiastical Canon. And the possessor is a thief
and a robber, our adversaries being judges. He in
vades others' provinces, and is bound to restore : and
long possession is but a protracted rebellion against
God and his Church 2 .
However it be with the secular powers, Christ's
Vicar must certainly derive from him, must hold the
1 [Concil. Nicsen. can. vi ; apud Labb. Tom. n. 32, e.j
2 [See some interesting remarks on this subject in Mr Palmer's
'Jurisdiction of the British Episcopacy,' pp. 132 138.]
8
114 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
power he gave, must come in it at his door. And S. W.
himself 1 against Dr Hammond fiercely affirmeth, that
' possession in this kind ought to begin near Christ's
time ; and he that hath begun it later, unless he can
evidence that he was driven out from an ancient
possession, is not to be styled a possessor, but an
usurper, an intruder, an invader, disobedient, rebel
lious, and schismatical.' Good night, S. W.
Quod ab initio fuit invalidum, tractu temporis non
convalescit, is a rule in the civil Law.
Yea, whatever possession the Pope got afterwards
was not only an illegal usurpation, but a manifest
violation of the Canon of Ephesus 2 , and thereby con
demned as schismatical.
1 [Schism Disarmed,] p. 50.
2 [Apud Labb. Concil. Tom. in. 802.]
CHAPTER VII.
THE POPE HAD NOT FULL POSSESSION HERE,
BEFORE HENRY VIII. I. NOT IN AUGUS
TINE'S TIME. II. NOR AFTER.
IT is boldly pleaded, that the Pope had possession
of the supremacy in England for nine hundred
years together, from Augustine till Henry VIII : and
no king on earth hath so long, and so clear prescrip
tion for his crown.
To which we answer, (1) That he had not such
possession. (2) If he had, it is no argument of a
just title.
SECTION I.
NOT IN AUSTIN'S TIME STATE OF SUPREMACY
QUESTIONED.
WE shall consider the Pope's supremacy here,
as it stood in and near Saint Augustine's time,
and in the ages after him, to Henry VIII.
I. We have not found hitherto, that in or about
the time of Augustine, Archbishop of Canterbury,
the Pope had any such power in England as is pre
tended.
Indeed, he came from Rome, but he brought no
mandate with him ; and when he was come, he did
nothing without the King's licence. At his arrival,
he petitions the King ; the King commands him to
stay in the Isle of Thanet. till his further pleasure
82
116 POSSESSION. [CHAP. VII.
was known : he obeyed ; afterward the King gave
him licence to preach to his subjects, and when he
was himself converted, majorem prcedicandi licentiam,
he enlarged his licence so to do 1 .
It is true Saint Gregory 2 presumed largely, to
subject all the Priests of Britain under Augustine, and
to give him power to erect two Archbishoprics, and
twelve Bishoprics under each of them ; but it is one
thing to claim, another thing to possess ; for xEthel-
bert was then the only Christian King, who had not
the twentieth part of Britain ; and it appears that
after both Saint Gregory and Austin were dead, there
were but one Archbishop and two Bishops throughout
the British Islands, of the Roman Communion.
Indeed, the British and Scotch Bishops were many,
but they renounced all communion with Rome 3 , as
appeared before.
We thankfully acknowledge the Pope's sending
over preachers ; his commending sometimes Arch
bishops, when desired, to us ; his directions to fill
up vacant sees : all which and such-like were acts
of charity, becoming so eminent a Prelate in the
Catholic Church ; but sure these were not marks of
supremacy.
It is possible, Saint Melit (as is 4 urged) might
1 Bed. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. c. 25, 26. [Augustine was consecrated
by the Archbishop of Aries (c. 27.) and placed in Canterbury by
the King; Lib. I. c. 25. Lib. n. c. 1. Cf. Archbp Bramhall's 'Just
Vindication,' Part I. chap, iv ; Works, Vol. I. p. 132.]
2 [Apud Spelman, Concil. Tom. i. p. 90.]
3 Bed. Hist. Eccl. Lib. n. c. 2, c. 4.
4 [R. C. (i. c. Richard Chalcedon)'s ' Survey ' of Bramhall's
Vindication, chap. iv. i.]
CHAI-. VII.] POSSESSION. 117
bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod hither to be
observed, and that they were worthy of our accept
ance, and were accepted accordingly ; but it is cer
tain, and will afterwards appear to be so, that such
Decrees were never of force here, further than they
were allowed by the King and kingdom.
It is not denied, but that sometimes we admitted
the Pope's Legates and Bulls too ; yet the legatine
Courts were not anciently heard of, neither were the
Legates themselves, or those Bulls of any authority
without the King's consent 1 .
Some would argue from the great and flattering
titles that were anciently given to the Pope ; but sure
such titles can never signify possession or power,
which at the same time, and perhaps by the very
same persons that gave the titles, was really and
indeed denied him.
But the great service the Bishop of Chalcedon
hath done his cause, by these little instances before
mentioned, will best appear 2 by a true state of the
question touching the supremacy betwixt the Pope
and the King of England ; in which such things are
not all concerned.
The plain question is, Who was then the political
head of the Church of England, the King or the
Pope ? Or more immediately, whether the Pope then
had possession of the supremacy here in such things,
as was denied him by Henry VIII. at the beginning of
i
[These points arc proved below, chap. ix. sect, n ; chap, x.]
2 Vid. Bramhall, [Replication to the Bp of Chalcedon, Part i,
hap, iv: Works, Vol. H. pp. 137, et seqq.]
H8 POSSESSION. [CHAP. VII.
our Reformation, and the Pope still challengeth ?
And they are such as these :
(1) A legislative power in ecclesiastical causes.
(2) A dispensative power, above and against the
Laws of the Church.
(3) A liberty to send Legates, and to hold lega-
tine Courts in England without licence.
(4) The right of receiving the last appeals of the
King's subjects.
(5) The patronage of the English Church, and
investitures of Bishops ; with power to impose oaths
upon them, contrary to their oath of Allegiance.
(6) The first-fruits and tenths of ecclesiastical
livings, and a power to impose upon them what
pensions, or other burthens, he pleaseth.
(7) The goods of Clergymen dying intestate.
These are the flowers of that supremacy Avhich
the Pope claimeth in England, and our Kings, and
Laws, and customs deny him (as will appear afterwards
in due place): for this place, it is enough to observe,
that we find no footsteps of such possession of the
Pope's power in England, in or about Augustine's
time.
As for that one instance of Saint Wilfrid's appeal,
it hath appeared before 1 , that it being rejected by two
Kings successively, by the other Archbishop, and by
the whole body of the English Clergy, sure it is no
full instance of the Pope's possession of the supremacy
here at that time ; and needs no further answer.
1 [Sec above, pp. 56, 57.]
CHAP. VII.] POSSESSION. 119
SECTION II.
NO CLEAR OR FULL POSSESSION IN THE AGES AFTER
AUSTIN TILL HENRY VIII. EIGHT DISTINC
TIONSTHE QUESTION STATED.
IT may be thought that though the things mentioned
were not in the Pope's possession so early, yet for
many ages together they were found in his possession,
and so continued without interruption, till Henry VIII.
ejected the Pope, and possessed himself and his suc
cessors of them.
Whether it were so or not, we are now to examine ;
and lest we should be deceived with colours and gene
ralities, we must distinguish carefully,
(1) Betwixt a primacy of order and dignity and
unity, and supremacy of power, the only thing dis
puted.
(2) Betwixt a judgment of direction resulting
from the said primacy, and a judgment of jurisdiction
depending upon supremacy.
(3) Betwixt things claimed, and things granted
and possessed.
(4) Betwixt things possessed continually, or for
some time only.
(5) Betwixt possession partial and of some lesser
branches, and plenary or of the main body of juris
diction.
(6) Betwixt things permitted of courtesy, and
things granted out of duty.
(7) Betwixt incroachment through craft, or power
or interest, or the temporary oscitancy of the people ;
and power grounded in the Laws, enjoyed Vith the
120 POSSESSION. [CHAP. VII.
consent of the states of the kingdom in times of
peace.
(8) Lastly, betwixt quiet possession, and inter
rupted.
These distinctions may receive a flout from some
capricious adversary ; but, I find, there is need of
them all, if we deal with a subtle one.
For the question is not, touching primacy in the
Bishop of Rome, or an acknowledged judgment of di
rection flowing from it, or a claim of jurisdiction,
which is no possession, or a partial possession of
power in some lesser things, or a larger power in
greater matters, yielded out of courtesy, oscitancy,
or fear, or surprise, and held only for a time, while
things were unsettled, or by power, craft, or in
terest, but soon after disclaimed, and frequently
interrupted: for this is not such a possession as our
adversaries plead for, or, indeed, will stand them
in stead.
But the question in short is this : Whether the
Pope had a quiet and uninterrupted possession of the
supreme power over the Church of England in those
great branches of supremacy denied him by Henry the
Eighth, for nine hundred years together, or for many
ages together before that time?
This strictly must be the question : for the com
plaint is, that Henry VIII. dispossessed the Pope of
the supremacy which he had enjoyed for so many
ages, and made himself head of the Church of Eng
land ; therefore those very things which that King-
then denied to the Pope, or took from him, must be
those flowers of the supremacy, which the Papists
CHAP. VII.] POSSESSION. 121
pretend the Pope had possession of, for so many ages
together before his time.
Two things, therefore, and those only, are needful
to be sought here : What those branches of power
are, which Henry the Eighth denied to the Pope, and
resumed to himself and his successors ? And whether
the Pope had quietly, and without plain interruption,
possessed the same for so many ages before his time ?
And in order thereunto, when and how he got it?
CHAPTER VILI.
WHAT THE SUPREMACY WAS, WHICH HENRY
THE EIGHTH TOOK FROM THE POPE. THE
PARTICULARS OF IT, WITH NOTES.
IT is true, Henry VIII. resumed the title of the
only Supreme Head in earth of the Church of
England, and denied this title to the Pope ; but it is
plain, the controversy was not so much about the
title as the power, 'the honours, dignities, jurisdic
tions, authorities, profits, &c. belonging or appertain
ing to the said dignity of Supreme Head of the
Church of England' ; as is evident by the statute l .
The particulars of that power were such as
these :
I. Henry VIII. prohibited all appeals to the
Pope and Legates from Eome 2 .
II. He also forbad all payments of money upon
any pretence to the Pope 3 .
III. He denied the Pope the nomination and
consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and presen
tations 4 .
IV. He prohibited all suits for Bulls, &c. to be
made to the Pope, or the see of Rome 5 .
V. He prohibited any Canons to be executed
here without the King's licence 6 .
1 26<> Hen. VIII. c. 1. -' 24" Hen. VIII. c. 12.
< [23 Hen. VIII. c. 20; 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20.]
1 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20. & 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21.
(! 25" Hen. VIII. c. 1 ft.
CHAP. VIII. J POSSESSION. 123
I have perused the statutes of King Henry VIII.,
and I cannot find any thing which he took away from
the Pope, but it is reducible to these five heads ;
touching which, by the way, we note :
(1) The controversy was not about a primacy of
order, or the beginning of unity, but a supremacy of
power.
(2) All these things were then denied him, not
by the King alone, but by all the states of the king
dom, in many statutes.
(3) The denial of all these branches of supre
macy to the Pope were grounded upon the ancient
laws and customs of the realm, as is usually noted in
the preamble of the said statutes : and if that one
thing shall be made to appear, we must conclude,
that the Pope might be guilty of an usurpation, but
could never have a legal possession of that supre
macy, that is in the question.
(4) Note, that the states of the kingdom in the
reign of Queen Mary, when by means of Cardinal
Pool they recognised the Pope's supremacy, it was
with this careful and express limitation 1 , 'that nothing
therein should be understood to diminish any the
liberties of the imperial crown of this realm, which
did belong unto it in the twentieth year of Henry
VIII.' without diminution or enlargement of the
Pope's supremacy in England, as it was in the
twentieth year of Henry VIII. So that Queen Mary
and her parliament added nothing to the Pope, but
only restored what he had before ; and when and
how that was obtained is next to be examined.
i 1" and 2 n Phil, and Mary. c. 8, [sect. 24.]
CHAPTER IX.
WHETHER THE POPE'S SUPREMACY HERE WAS
IN QUIET POSSESSION TILL HENRY
THE EIGHTH.
WE have found what branches of the Pope's power
were cut off by Henry VIII.
The question is, Whether the Pope had possession
of them, without interruption, before that time ? And
that we may proceed distinctly and clearly, we shall
consider each of the former branches by themselves ;
and first we begin with the Pope's power of receiving
Appeals from hence, which carries a very considerable
part of his pretended jurisdiction.
SECTION I.
OF APPEALS TO ROME THREE NOTIONS OF APPEAL
APPEALS TO ROME LOCALLY, OR BY LEGATES
WILFRID AN SELM.
APPEALS to Rome we have found among these
things which were prohibited by Henry VIII :
therefore no doubt the Pope claimed, and in some
sort possessed, the power of receiving such Appeals
before. But what kind of possession, how free, and
how long, is worthy to be inquired.
Three ' Appeal' is a word taken several ways : sometimes
senses ol
appeal. it is only to accuse ; (so we find it in the Statutes l
1 fSce the ' Rolls' of Parliament, suh ann.]
CHAP. IX.] POSSESSION. 125
11 and 21 Richard II.) Sometimes to refer our
selves for judgment to some worthy person ; (so Franc-
fort appealed to John Calvin 1 .) But now it is chiefly
used for a removing a cause from an inferior to a
superior court, that hath power of disanulling what
the other did.
In this last sense, historians 2 tell us that Appeals
to Rome were not in use with us, till about five hun
dred years agon, or a little more, viz. the year 1140.
These Appeals to Rome were received and judged
either in the Pope's court at Rome, or by his Legates
in England. A word or two of each.
For Appeals to the Pope at Rome, the two famous I. Locally,
instances of Wilfrid and Anselm take up much of our
history.
But they both seem, at least at first, to have Wilfrid.
appealed to the Pope, under the second notion of
appeal ; not to him as a proper or legal judge, but
as a great and venerable Prelate.
But not to stick there, it is well known what
effect they obtained. As for Wilfrid, his account
was of elder date, and hath appeared before 3 , to the
great prejudice of the Pope's possession in England
at that time.
But Anselm is the great monument of papal obe-
dience, and (as a learned man 4 observes) the first pro
moter of papal authority in England. He began his
enterprise with a pretence, that he ought not to be
1 [Troubles at Frankford, p. 36 ; cd. 1575.]
2 [See Twysden's Historical Vindication, p. 35.]
3 [See above, pp. 56, 57.]
4 [Twysden, Hist. Vind. pp. 14, 41. It is important to bear in
mind that Anselm was an Italian.]
126 POSSESSION. [CHAP. IX.
barred of visiting the Vicar of St Peter causa regi-
minis ecclesice, but he was not suffered to do that 1 .
So far was the Pope then, from having the power of
receiving Appeals, that he might not receive the visit
of a person of Anselm's quality, without the King's
leave.
First, he was told ' by the Bishops, as well as lay-
lords, that it was a thing unheard of, and altogether
against the use of the realm, for any of the great
men, especially himself, to presume any such thing,
without the King's licence 2 .'
Notwithstanding, he would and did go ; but what
followed ? His bishopric was seized into the King's
hand, and the Pope durst not, or thought not good,
to give him either consilium or auxilium, as Sir Roger
Twysden makes appear 3 out of Eadmer.
In the dispute, the king told Anselm the Pope
had not to do with his rights, and wrote that free
letter we find in Jorvalensis 4 ; and upon the ambi
guous answer of the Pope, the King sent Anselm him
self to Home, [and with him another person,] who
spake plainly, his master for the loss of his kingdom,
would not lose the investiture of his churches 5 .
1 [See the circumstances more fully narrated in Twysden, pp.
15 17. On one occasion, when the Pope's condemnation of regal
investitures was made known in England, Anselm had occasion to
complain as follows : " Quod audientes rex et principes ejus, ipsi
etiam episcopi et alii minoris ordinis tarn graviter acceperunt, ut
assererent se nullo modo huic rei assensum prsebituros, et me de
regno potius quam hoc servarent expulsuros, et a Romana ecclesia
se discessuros." p. 16.]
2 [Eadmer, Hist. Nov. p. 39, 1. 30.]
3 pp. 11, 12 ; [p. 15, new edit.]
4 col. 999, 1. 37, etc. [apud Scriptores x. od. Lond. 1652.]
5 Eadmer, p. 73, 1. 13.
Cir.vi>. IX.] POSSESSION. 127
But ' Anselm, as Archbishop, took the oath that Objection,
was appointed by the Pope to be taken at the
receiving of the pall, which allowed his power to
receive Appeals.'
It is true ; but Paschalis himself 1 , who devised that Answer.
oath, acknowledgeth that it was (as Anselm signified
to him) not admitted, but wondered at ; and looked
on as a strange innovation both by the King and the
great men of the kingdom. The King pleaded the
fundamental laws and customs of the land against it :
"It is a custom of my kingdom, instituted by my
father, that no Pope may be appealed unto, without
the King's licence. He that takes away the customs
of the kingdom doth violate the power and crown of
the King 2 ." And it is well noted by Archbishop
Bramhall 3 , that ' the laws established by his father
(viz. William the Conqueror) were no other than the
laws of Edward the Confessor, that is to say, the old
Saxon laws,' who 4 had before yielded to the request
of his barons (as Hoveden 5 notes) to confirm those
laws.
But though Anselm had obliged himself by the
said oath to the Pope, yet the rest of the Bishops
refused the yoke ; and thereupon Malmsbury tells
us 6 , that 'in the execution of these things, all the
1 Baron. Annal. Tom. xi. ad an. 1102, vrn.
2 Malmesbur. cle Gcstis Pont. Anglorum, Lib. i. [p. 219; ed.
Francof. 1601.]
3 [Just Vindication, Part i. Disc, ii ; Works, Vol. I. p. 136.]
4 [i.e. William the Conqueror.]
5 [R. de Hoveden, Annal. inter Rerum Angl. Scriptores, p. 60S;
od. Franc. 1601.]
6 [Ubi supra, p. 219.]
128 POSSESSION. [CHAP. IX.
Bishops of England did deny their suffrage to their
Primate.'
Consequently, the unanimity of the whole realm
appeared in the same point, in the reign of this King's
grandchild, in the statute of Clarendon ; confirming
the former British-English custom, not only by their
consents but their oaths 1 : wherein generally every
man is interdicted to appeal to Rome.
This statute of Clarendon was made, when popery
seemed to be at the height in England. It was made
to confirm the customs and liberties of Henry the
Second's predecessors, that is to say (as the words of
the statute are) his grandfather Henry the First, son
of the Conqueror, and other kings. Now the customs
of England are our common Laws, and the customs of
his predecessors were the Saxon, Danish, and Nor
man Laws ; and therefore ought to be observed of all.
as my Lord Bramhall reasons 2 .
What these customs were, I may shew more
largely hereafter ; at present this one is pertinent.
" All Appeals in England must proceed regularly
from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop
to the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop fail to do
his duty, the last complaint must be to the King, to
give order for redress 3 ," that is, by fit delegates.
In Edward the Third's time, we have a plain law
to the same purpose in these words 4 : 'Whosoever
1 Mat. Paris, Hist. Major. A.D. 1164, [p. 100]: R. de Hovcden,
Annal. [p. 496.]
2 [Just Vindication, Vol. I. pp. 135 137: Schism Guarded,
Vol. n. p. 439.]
3 [Mat. Paris, A.D. 1164; pp. 100, 101 ; ed. 1639.]
< 27 Edw. III. c. 1.
CHAP. IX.] POSSESSION. 129
should draw any of the King's subjects out of the
realm, in plea about any cause, whereof the cogni
zance belongeth to the King's court ; or should sue in
any foreign court to defeat any judgment given in
the King's court,' (viz. by appealing to Rome) ' they
should incur the same penalties.' And upon the same
ground, the body of the kingdom would not suffer
Edward the First to be cited before the Pope 1 .
It is confessed, that in the Laws of Henry I. it is Objection.
granted, that in case a Bishop erring in faith, and
on admonition appearing incorrigible, ad summos Pon-
tifices (the Archbishops) vel sedem apostolicam accu-
setnr: which passage, as Sir Roger Twysden 2 guesses,
was inserted afterwards, or the grant gotten by the
importunity of the then Pope.
But the same learned man's note upon it is, that Answer.
" this is the only cause wherein I find any English
law did ever approve a foreign judicature 3 ."
It is plain, Anselm's Appeal (now on foot) was
disapproved by the whole kingdom 4 ; it is evident,
that this clause was directly repugnant to the liberties
and customs of the realm, upon which Anselm's
Appeal was so ill resented.
It is manifest in those days and after, Appeals to
Rome were not common, (yea, this very Pope Pas-
chalis 5 complains to this King, Vos oppressis apostolicce
sedis appellationem subtrahitis, which was A. D. 1115,)
1 [A.D. 1301. The letter may be seen in Fox, Acts and Monu
ments, Vol. i. pp. 388, 389, ed. 1684.]
2 [Vindication, p. 41.] 3 [ibid.]
4 [See above, p. 126.]
5 Bailmer, [p. 115, 1. 31.]
9
130 POSSESSION. [OHAV. IX.
and that they were held a cruel intrusion 1 on the
Church's liberty ; so as at the assize at Clarendon,
1164, this law, if it were so, was annulled and declared
to be contrary to the liberties and customs of the
realm ; the eighth chapter whereof is wholly spent in
shewing the right of the kingdom in this point, quod
non appellaretur pro causa aliqua ad sedem apostolicam,
' without leave had first, from the King and his offi
cials,' as John of Salisbury interprets 2 .
Objection. Indeed the King did personally yield afterwards,
A.D. 1172, not to hinder such Appeals in ecclesiastical
causes.
Answer. But the whole kingdom, four years after, would
not quit their interest ; but did again renew the
assize of Clarendon, 1176, using this close expres
sion 3 : Justitice faciant queer ere per consuetudinem terra;
illos, qui a regno recesserunt ; et nisi redire voluerint
[infra terminum nominatum] et stare [ad rectuni] in
curia domini regis, postea uthlagentur, etc. as Gervase
also notes 4 .
Accordingly this was the practice, during King-
Richard the First's time. Geoffrey, Archbishop of
York, was complained of, that he did not only refuse
Appeals to Rome, but imprisoned those that made
them : and though upon that complaint, a time was
assigned to make his defence to the Pope, yet he
1 [Henr. Huntiudon. Hist. Lib. vm. p. 395, 1. 16, etc. <<!.
Francof. 1601.]
2 [Johan. Sarcsber. Epist. clix. p. 254; cd. Paris, 1611.]
3 [This took place in a parliament at Northampton. Vid. R.
de Hoveden, Annal. p. 502, 1. 29.]
4 [Gervas. Dorobern. Chronica, col. 1433, 1. 19; inter Scrip-
tores x.]
CHAP. IX.] POSSESSION. 131
refused to go, because of the King's prohibition and
the indisposition of the air 1 .
After this, upon a difference with the King, the
Archbishop went to Rome, and made his peace with
the Pope, and returns ; but the King offended with
it committed 2 the care even of the spirituals of his
Archbishopric to others, till he had reconciled him
self to the crown 3 , which was near two years after,
about 1198.
After this again he received complaint from Inno-
centius III. ' non excusare te potes,' &c. " Thou canst
not excuse thyself as thou oughtest, that thou art
ignorant of the privilege of Appeals to us ; seeing thou
thyself hast sometimes done the same 4 ."
And near about the same time (as Twysden ob
serves), ' Robert, Abbot of Thorney, deposed by Hu
bert, the Archbishop, was kept in prison a year and
a half, without any regard had to his appeal made to
the Pope 5 .'
Indeed, that Pope Innocent III. and his clergy,
great instruments in obtaining Magna Charta from
that Prince, had got that clause 6 inserted, Liceat uni-
cuique, 'it is lawful for any one to go out of our
kingdom, and to return, nisi in tempore guerrce per
aliquod breve tempus.' "After which," saith 7 Twysden,
1 [R. de Hoveden, A.D. 1195, p. 751, 1. 10.]
2 [R. de Hoveden, Annal. p. 766, 1. 22, etc.]
3 [Ibid. p. 778, 1. 25.]
4 [A.D. 1201, p. 817, 1. 53, etc.]
5 [Ibid. A.D. 1195, p. 757, 1. 17. Other instances of the same
kind are adduced by Twysden, p. 48.]
6 [Apud Mat. Paris, Hist. Major, p. 258, 1. 53, etc.]
7 [Ibid.]
92
132 POSSESSION. [CHAP. IX.
it is scarce imaginable how many petty causes
were by Appeals removed to Rome ; " which did
not only cause jealousy at Rome, that the grievance
would not long be borne, and put the Pope in pru
dence to study and effect a mitigation, by some
favourable privileges granted to the Archbishop
ric ; but it did also awaken the King and kingdom
to stand upon, and recover their ancient liberty in
that point 1 .
Hereupon, the body of the kingdom, in their que
rulous letter to Innocent IV. 1245, or rather to the
Council at Lyons, claim 2 ' that no Legate ought to
come here, but on the King's desire, et ne quis extra
regnum trahatar in causam,' which 3 Matthew Paris
left out ; but is found in Mr Roper's MS. and Mr
Dugdale's (as Sir Roger Twysden 4 observes) ; agreea
ble to one of the Gravamina Anglice, sent to the same
Pope, 1246, viz. quod Anglici extra regnum in causis
apostolica auctoritate trahuntur 5 .
Therefore, it is most remarkable, that at the re
vising of Magna Charta by Edward I., the former
clause, Liceat unicuique, &c. was left out. Since which
time, none of the clergy might go beyond seas but
with the King's leave ; as the writs 6 in the Register,
and the Acts of Parliament 7 assure us ; and (which is
1 [Cf. Twysden's Vindication, pp. 49, et seqq.J
2 Apud Mat. Paris, p. 668, 1. 3.
3 [viz. the clause ' ne quis/ etc.]
4 [Vindication, p. 51, and note 8.]
5 [Apud Mat. Paris, p. 699, 1. 10.]
6 [Registrum Brevium, fol. 193, b ; ed. Lond. 1687.]
17 [Parliament at Cambridge, 12 Ric. II., apud Hen. de Knygh-
ton, col. 2734, 1. 39, etc. : Stat. 5 Ric. II. i. c. 2.]
CHAP. IX.] POSSESSION. 133
more) if any were in the court of Rome, the King
called them home 1 .
The rich Cardinal Bishop of Winchester 2 knew
the law in this case, and that no man was so great,
but he might need pardon for the offence : and there
fore, about 1429. caused a petition to be exhibited in
Parliament 3 , ' that neither himself, nor any other, should
be troubled by the King, &c. for cause of any provi
sion or offence done by the said Cardinal against any
statute of Provisors ', &c. This was in the eighth of
Henry the Sixth, and we have a plain statute making
such Appeals a prcemunire in Edward the Fourth 4 .
Sir Roger Twysden 5 observes, 'the truth of this bar
ring Appeals is so constantly averred by all the ancient
monuments of this nation, as Philip Scot 6 , not finding
how to deny it, falls upon another way ; that, if the
right of Appeals were abrogated, it concludes not the
see of Rome had no jurisdiction over this Church.'
"*
The concession gives countenance to our present in-
1 [Hen. de Knyghton, col. 2601, 1. 44, etc.]
2 [i.e. Henry Beaufort, brother of King Henry IV.]
3 Rot. Parl. ID" Hen. VI. 16. [A full account is given by
Twysden, Vind. p. 52.]
4 9 Edw. IV. 3. [According to the printed 'Rolls' and
' Statutes', no parliament assembled this year. Perhaps Full-
wood's authority was Sir Edw. Coke's Reports, (Part v. fol. 26, b ;
cd. 1624), where similar language is used and the same reference
given. Coke, however, is speaking of a decision of the Court of
King's Bench. The great Statutes prohibiting Appeals to Rome,
under the penalty of a Prscmunirc, are 16 Ric. II. c. 5. and 27
Edw. III. c. 1.]
5 [Ubi supra, p. 53.]
6 [Treatise of the Schism of England, p. 174 ; ed. Amsterdam,
1650.]
134 POSSESSION. [CHAI>. IX.
quiry ; the consequence shall be considered in its
proper place.
What can be further said, in pretence of a quiet
possession of Appeals for nine hundred years toge
ther ? Since it hath been found to be interrupted
all along, till within one hundred years before Henry
VIII.
Especially, seeing my Lord Bramhall hath made
it evident by clear instances, that it is the unanimous
judgment of all Christendom, that not the Pope, but
their own sovereigns in their Councils are the last
judges of their national liberties 1 .
SECTION II.
OF THE POPE'S POSSESSION HERE BY HIS LEGATES
OCCASION OF THEM ENTERTAINMENT OF THEM.
IT is acknowledged by some, that citing English
men to appear at Home was very inconvenient ;
therefore the Pope had his Legates here, to execute
his power without that inconvenience to us.
How the Pope had possession of this legatinc
power, is now to be inquired.
The correspondence betwixt us and Rome, at
first, gave rise to this power ; the messengers from
Rome were sometimes called Legati, though at other
times Nuncii.
After the erection of Canterbury into an Arch
bishopric, the Archbishop was held, qnrtxi Itcrinx
i Vid. Bramhall, pp. 106118; [Vol. i. pp. 21<>. ct s
edit.]
CHAP. IX.] POSSESSION. 135
orbis Papa, as Urban II. styled him 1 ; he exercising 11
vices apostolicas in Anglia, that is, used the same
power within this island, the Pope did in other parts.
Consequently, if any question did arise, the deter
mination was in Council ; as the deposing Stygand : \
and the settling 4 the precedency betwixt Canterbury
and York. The instructions 5 mentioned of Henry L,
the right of the realm 6 , that none should be drawn
out of it auctoritate apostolica, do assure us, that our
ancient applications to the Pope were acts of bro
therly confidence in the wisdom, piety, and kindness
of that Church ; that it was able and willing to advise
and assist us in any difficulty ; and not of obedience,
or acknowledgement of jurisdiction, as appear by
that letter 7 of Kenulphus and others to Pope Leo III.
A.D. 797. (Quibus sapientice clavis, 'the key of wis
dom,' not authority, was acknowledged therein.)
Much less can we imagine, that the Pope's mes
sengers brought hither any other power, than that of
direction and counsel at first, either to the King or
Archbishop. The Archbishop was nullius unquam
Legati ditioni addictus 8 : therefore none were suffered
1 Malmesbur. do Gcstis Pontif. Angl. [Lib. i. p. 223, 1. 13 :
Gorvas. Dorobcrn. col. 1327, 1. 58.]
2 [Eadmer, p. 58, 1. 43.]
3 Florent. Wigorn. Chronicon, A.P. 1070, [pp. 636, 637; cd.
Francof. 1601.]
1 [Cf. Twysden's Vindication, pp. 25, 27, 72.]
5 [Ibid. p. 19.]
" [Vid. Mat. Paris, A.D. 1246, p. 699, 1. 10.]
7 Malmesbur. do Gestis Regum, Lib. I. [p. 31, 1. 10, etc.]
8 [Gorvas. Dorobcrn. Actus Pontif. Cantuar. col. 1663, 1. 56.
Gervaso of Canterbury is also the authority for the following par
ticulars. Vid. col. 1485, 1. r,'<, etc. : col. 1531, 1. 37. etc.]
136 POSSESSION. [CHAP. IX.
to wear a mitre within his province, or had the cro
sier carried, nor laid any excommunication upon this
ground, in dicecesi Archiepiscopi apostolicam non tenere
sententiam : the Church of Canterbury being then es
teemed 1 omnium nostrum mater communis sub sponsi
Jesu Christi dispositione.
True, the Pope did prcecipere, but that did not
argue the acknowledgement of his power ; (so John
Calvin commanded Knox 2 ) : the question is, how he
was obeyed? It is certain his precepts, if disliked,
were questioned 3 , opposed 4 , and those he sent not per
mitted to meddle with those things they came about 5 .
But historians observe, that we might be wrought
Occasion to better temper, some persons were admitted into
ot .Legates.
the kingdom, that might by degrees raise the papacy
to its designed height. These were called Legates ;
but we find not any courts kept by them, or any
power exercised with effect, beyond what the King
and kingdom pleased, which indeed was very little.
The Pope's Legate was at the Council touching
the precedence of the Archbishops ; but he subscribed
the sixteenth, after all the English Bishops, and not
like the Pope's person or proctor, (as Sir Eoger Twys-
den 6 proves).
The first Council, wherein the Pope's Legate pre
ceded Archbishops, was that of Vienne, a little more
1 Gervas. Dorobern. Actus Pontif. Cantuar. [col. 1663, I. 24.]
2 Knox, Hist. Church of Scotland, p. 93, [cd. 1644.]
3 Eadmor, p. 92, 1. 40.
* Gervas. Dorobern. col. 1315, 1. 66.
r> Ibid. col. 1558, 1. 56. [Sec more on this subject in Twysdeti's
Vind. pp. 2527.]
6 IP- 25.]
CHAP. IX.] POSSESSION. 137
than three hundred years agon, viz. 1311, (as the same
author l observes) ; wherein he looked like the Legate
of his holiness indeed.
But let us examine what entertainment the power
of a Legate found here. The Archbishop was jea
lous that a Legate, residing here, would prove 2 in suce
dignitatis prcejudicium ; and the King himself was not
without suspicions, and therefore would suffer none,
so much as to be taken for Pope, but whom he ap
proved ; nor any to receive so much as a letter from
Rome, without acquainting him with it ; and held it
an undoubted right of the crown, that ' none should
be admitted to do the office of a Legate here, if he
himself did not desire itV
Things standing thus, in A.D. 1100, the Archbishop
of Vienne coming over reported himself that he had
the legatine power of all Britain committed to him ;
but finding no encouragement to use his commission,
departed, ' by none received as Legate, nor doing any
part of that office 4 .'
Fourteen years after, Paschalis II., by letters ex
postulates with the King about several things, in par
ticular, ' his non-admitting either messenger or letter,
without his leave 5 .'
A year after, [he] addressed Anselm, nephew to the
late Archbishop, shewing his commission vices ycrere
apostolicas in Anylia. This made known, the clergy
and nobility in Council at London, sent the Arch-
1 [p. 29.] 2 Mat. Paris, A. D! 1237, p. 440, 1. 17.
:i Eadmor, p. 125, 1. 53, etc, : p. 6, 1. 25; p. 113, 1. 1.
1 Ibid. p. 58, 1. 40, etc.
3 Ibid. pp. 112116.
1 38 POSSESSION. [CHAP. IX.
bishop to the King in Normandy to make known
unto him the ancient custom of the realm, and by
his advice to Home, ' ut hcec nova annihilaret 1 .'
After this, A.D. 1119, the King sent his Bishops
to a Council held by Calixtus II. at Rheims, with in
structions among other things, that they should hum
bly hear the Pope's precepts, but bring no superfluous
adinventiones into his kingdom 2 .'
In November following, the Pope and King had a
meeting 3 at Gisors in Normandy ; where Calixtus
confirmed unto him his father's usages, in special,
that of sending no Legate hither, but on the King's
desire : and when the same Pope, not full two years
after his grant to the contrary, addressed another
Legate to these parts, the King's wisdom so ordered
it, ' that he which came to do the office of a Legate
in all Britain, was sent as he came, without doing any
part of that office 4 .'
Objection. But it is said that Calixtus confirmed unto the
King his father's usages : therefore it was in the
Pope's power originally and by delegation, and not
in the King. Accordingly in our best authors (and
in particular, Eadmer), we find these words, collata,
concessa, impetrata, permissa, as is urged in answer
to my Lord Coke\
Answers. (l) These words indeed intimate the Pope's kind-
i Eadmer, p. 118, 1. 28 ; p. 120.
- [Twysdcn's Vindication, p. 19 : on the authority of Ordericus
Vitalis, pp. 857, 858.]
3 [Vhl. Eadmor, p. 125, 1. 49.]
* Ibid. A.D. 1121, p. 137, 1. 46; p. 138, 1. 13, etc.
1 [vi/. by Persons, the Jesuit, in his Answer to Sir Edward
Coke's Reports, cap. ix. sect 8, p. 200.]
CHAP. IX.] POSSESSION. 139
ness and peaceable disposition at present, viz. that he
will not disturb, but allow our enjoyment of our an
cient privileges as if they were customs concessa, fungi
permissa ; the same Eadmer calls l antiqua Anglice
consuetude, libertas regni.
(2) The words do seem also to intimate the
Pope's claim at that time: but the true question is
about his possession, which in placing Legates there
was ever denied him, not as a thing granted formerly
by the Pope, but as one of the 2 dignitates, usus, et con-
fiiietudines (as Henry I. claimed and defended).
(3) Lastly, they rather intimated the Pope's
want of power, than proved his authority here ; and
what our princes did in their own right, he would
continue to them as a privilege, for no other reason
but because he could not take it from them, or durst
not deny it to them. So he dealt with Edward the
Confessor 3 : Vobis et posteris vestris Regibus commit-
timus advocationem et tuitionem ejusdem loci; but long
before that, our Kings looked upon it as their office 4
regere populum Domini et Ecclesiam ejus, which the
Pope knew well enough. Therefore, a Legate land
ing in England in Edward the Fourth's time, was
obliged to take oath, that he would attempt nothing
to the derogation of the rights of the King or crown 5 .
In Henry the Sixth's nonage, his uncle was sent
Legate by Martin V. Richard Caudray the King's
1 p. 125, 1. 33, p. 118, 1. 33.
- [Vid. Hen. I. Epist. apud Jorvalcns. col. 999, 1. 49.]
:i [Ailrcd. do Vita Edw. col. 388,1. 53, inter Scriptorcs x. |
1 Baron. Annal. Tom. xi. ad an. 1059, xxm.
5 [See Coke's Reports. P;vrl v. fol. 27, a: ed. 1K24.]
140 POSSESSION. [CHAP. IX.
attorney, made protestation 1 , ' that none was to come
as Legate from the Pope, or enter the kingdom with
out the King's appointment': a right enjoyed from
all memory.
In the reign of Henry V. the design of sending a
Legate from Rome, though it were the King's own
uncle, was opposed 2 ; the enterprise took no effect
during that King's reign. And in the eleventh of
King Henry IV., the judges unanimously pronounce 3 ,
' that the statutes which restrain the Pope's provi
sions were only declaratory of the common laws of
England.'
It was in the year 1245, when the whole state of
England complained of the Pope's infamous messen
ger, Non obstante, by which oaths, customs, &c. were
not only weakened but made void ; and unless the
grievances were removed, Oportebit nos ponere munim
pro domo Domini, et libertate Regni*.
Yea long after this, in the year 1343, Edward III.
made his addresses likewise to Rome, which the Pope
branded with the title of 'rebellion 5 .' But to requite
him, that wise and stout prince made the statutes of
Provisors and Prcemunire 6 , directly opposed to the
incroachments and usurpations of the court of Rome.
1 [The Legato hero spoken of was Henry Beaufort, great uncle
of King Henry VI. The original document is printed in Fox,
Vol. i. p. 802, col. 2 ; ed. 1684.]
2 [This was the same Henry Beaufort. See Duck's Life of
Archbp Chichele, pp. 34, et seqq. Lond. 1681.]
3 [See Coke's Reports, Part v. fol. 23, a.]
4 Mat. Paris, A.D. 1245, 1246, [pp. 698, 699.]
5 Walsingharn, [Hist. A.D. 1343, p. 149: inter Angl. Script, ed.
Camden. Franeof. 1603.]
h'.V I'Mw. III. Stat. fi, 3 : 27 Ed\v. III. c. 1.]
CHAP. IX.] POSSESSION. 141
Whereby he so abated their power in England for
sundry ages following, that a Dean and Chapter was
able to deal with the Pope in England, and to foil
him too 1 .
The sum is, during the reigns of all the British
and Saxon Kings, until the Norman Conquest, lega
tions from Rome were seldom, and but messengers :
a Lcgatine or Nuncio's court we find not. Gregory,
Bishop of Ostium, the Pope's own Legate did confess,
that 'he was the first Roman priest that w r as sent into
those parts of Britain from the time of St Austin 2 .'
When these Legates multiplied, and usurped
authority over us, the kingdom would not bear it ; as
appears by the statute of Clarendon, confirming the
ancient British-English custom, with the consent and
oaths of all the Prelates and Peers of the realm : and
upon this custom was the law grounded, " If any one
be found bringing in the Pope's letter or mandate,
let him be apprehended, let justice pass upon him
without delay, as a traitor to the King and kingdom 3 .
And all along afterwards we have found, that still
as occasion required, the same custom was maintained
and vindicated both by the Church and State of the
realm, till within a hundred years before Henry VIII.
So that the rejection of the Pope's Legate is
founded in the ancient right, the common and sta
tute laws of the realm ; and the legatine power is a
plain usurpation contrary thereunto, and was ever
1 A.D. 1420, Bramhall, p. 99; [Vol. i. p. 195. new ed.]
2 Spelman, Concil. A.D. 784, [Tom. i. p. 293.]
3 Mat. Paris, A.D. 1164, [pp. 100, 101]; R. <le Hovcden, [Annal.
p. 496.]
] 42 POSSESSION. [CHAP. IX.
looked upon as such, it never having any real possession
among us by law, or quiet possession in fact, for any-
considerable time together ; but was still interrupted
by the whole kingdom, by new declaratory laws
against it.
Thus, we have seen how the Pope's possession of
the formal branch of jurisdiction, by Appeals and Le
gates, stood here from St Austin to Henry VIII. ;
and that ' it was quiet and uninterrupted for nine
hundred years together,' passeth away as a vapour ; the
contrary being evident by as authentic testimonies as
can be desired. And now what can be imagined to
enervate them ?
Objection. if it be urged that it was once in the body of
our laws, viz. in Magna Charta 1 , Liceat unicuique de
ccetero exire de regno nostro, et redire salvo et secure per
terram et per aquam, salva fide nostra ; nisi in tempore
guerrce per aliquod breve tempus ; it is confessed.
Answer. g u t here is no expression, that plainly and in
terms gives licence of Appeals to Rome, It is indeed
said, that it is lawful for any to go out of the king
dom and to return safe, but mark the conditions fol
lowing, Nisi in, &c. It is likely, these words were in
serted in favour of Appeals, but it may be the authors
were timorous to word it in a more plain contradic
tion to our ancient liberties.
(2) The very form of words as they are, would
seem to intimate that the custom of England was
otherwise.
(3) Lastly, if it be considered, how soon after,
* [Apud Mat. Paris, p. 258, 1. 53. etc.]
CHAP. IX.] POSSESSION. 143
and with what unanimity and courage our ancient
liberty to the contrary was redeemed and vindicated,
and that clause left out of Magna Charta ever since,
though revised and confirmed by so many Kings and
Parliaments successively, it is only an argument of a
sudden and violent torrent of papal power in King
John's time, not of any grounded or well settled
authority in the English laws, as our English liberties
have. I conclude with those weighty words of the
Statute, 27 Edw. III. c. 1 : 'Having regard to the
said statute made in the time of his said grandfathers,
which statute holdeth always in force, which was
never annulled or defeated in any point ; and foras
much as he bound by his oath to do the same, to be
kept as the law of the realm, though that by suffer
ance and negligence it hath been since attempted to
the contrary 1 .'
Whereupon, it is well observed, that Queen Mary
herself denied Cardinal Peto 2 to appear as the Pope's
Legate in England in her time ; and caused all the
sea-ports to be stopped, and all letters, briefs, and
bulls to be intercepted and brought to her 3 .
1 Vid. Preamble of the statute.
2 [See ' Antiquities of the English Franciscans,' Part I. p. 253,
Lond. 1726.]
3 [See Collier's Church Hist. Vol. n. p. 399, fol. ed.]
CHAPTER X.
THE POPE'S LEGISLATIVE POWER IN ENGLAND
BEFORE HENRY VIII. NO CANONS OF
THE POPE OBLIGE US WITHOUT OUR
CONSENT OUR KINGS, SAXONS,
DANES, NORMANS, MADE
LAWS ECCLESIASTICAL.
WE have found possession of the executive power
otherwise than was pretended ; we now come
to consider how it stood with the legislative. The
Pope indeed claimed a power of making and imposing
Canons upon this Church ; but Henry VIII. denied
him any such power, and prohibited any Canons
whatsoever to be executed here, without the King's
licence ! .
The question now is, Whether the Pope enjoyed
that power of making and imposing Canons effectually
and quietly here, from the time of St Augustine to
Henry the Eighth, or indeed any considerable time
together. And this would invite us to a greater de
bate, who was supreme in the English Church (the
Pope or the King) during that time, or rather who
had the exercise of the supremacy : for the power of
making laws is the chief flower or branch of the su
premacy, and he that freely, and without interruption,
enjoyed this power, was doubtless in the possession
of the supremacy.
That the Pope had it not, so long and so quietly
i 25 f > Hon. VIII. c. 19.
CHAP. X.] POSSESSION. 145
as is pleaded by some, and that our Kings have gene
rally enjoyed it, will both together appear with evi
dence enough by the particulars following :
(1) If none were to be taken for Pope but by
the King's appointment, sure his laws were not to be
received, but with the King's allowance.
(2) If not so much as a letter could be received
from the Pope without the King's knowledge, who
caused words prejudicial to the Crown to be renounced,
sure neither his laws.
Both the antecedents we find in Eadmer 1 .
(3) If no Canons could be made here Avithout
the King's authority, or being made coulcl have any
force, but by the King's allowance and confirmation,
where was the Pope's Supremacy ? That Canons Convoca.
could not be made here without the King's authority King S by
is evident, because the convocations themselves always
were, and ought to be assembled by the King's writ 2 .
Besides the King caused some to sit therein who
might supervise the actions, and Legato ex parte regis
et regni inhiberent, ne ibi contra regiam coronam et dig
nitatem aliquid statuere attentaret 3 ; and when any did
otherwise, he was forced to retract what he had done
(as did Peckham 4 ); or the decrees were in paucis ser-
vatce (as those of Boniface 5 ).
1 [Hist. Nov.] p. 6, 1. 26; p- 113, 1. 1.
2 Eadmer, p. 24, 1. 5, 1. 11, [The Statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19,
based its decision on what ' always had been.']
3 Mat. Paris, A.D. 1237, p. 447, 1. 51.
4 [Vid. Selden. de Synedriis ; Opp. Vol. i. Tom. ir. p 982
ed. 1726.]
5 Lyndwood, [Provinciate, Lib. n. de Foro Competent! n 92
not. d ; ed. 1679.]
10
146 POSSESSION. [CHAP. X.
(jiinons If Canons were made, though the Pope's Legate,
confirmed
by Kings, and consequently all his power, was at the making of
them, yet had they no force at all as laws over us,
without the King's allowance and confirmation 1 . The
King having first heard what was decreed 2 consenswn
prcebuit, auctoritate regia et potestate concessit et con-
firmavit statuta concilii, ' by his kingly power he con
firmed the Statutes of the Council of William Arch
bishop of Canterbury, and the Legate of the holy
Roman Church, celebrated at Westminster' 'By the
assent of the King, et primorum omnium Regni, the
chapters subscribed were promulged 3 .'
Twysden concludes 4 : "As for Councils, it is cer
tain none from Home did, till 1125, intermeddle in
calling any here 5 ." If they did come to them, as to
Calcuith, the King, upon the advice of the Arch
bishop, statuit diem concilii, ' appointed the day of the
Council.' So when William I. held one at Winchester,
1070, for deposing Stygand, though there came to it
three sent from Alexander II., yet it was held, jubente
et presente Rege, who was 6 president of it.
1 Eadmer, p. 6, 1. 29.
2 [Continuatio ad] Florent. Wigorn. A.D. 1127, p. 663: [ed.
Francof. 1G01.]
3 Gervas. Dorobcrn. A.D. 1175, col. 1429, 1. 16.
4 [Historical Vinci, pp. 24, 25. The above instances, and othors
of a like nature, may be seen in Twysden's chapter on the autho
rity of the crown in matters ecclesiastical. Ibid. pp. 129, et seqq.]
f> [In this case, as in others, the reading of the new edition of
Twysden's Vindication has been inserted into our Author's text.]
c [The authority is the Life of Archbp. Lanfranc, c. vi., pre
fixed to the Paris edition of his works. In a council touching
precedency between the sees of Canterbury and York, the pope's
legate subscribed the sixtopnth. after all the English bishops
Twysden, Ibid.]
CHAP. X.] POSSESSION. 147
All our Canons are therefore (as they are justly Canons
called) the King's ecclesiastical Laws ; because no laws?
Canons have the power of Laws, but such as he allows
and confirms : and whatsoever Canons he confirmed
of old, that had their original from a foreign power,
he allowed for the sake of their piety or equity, or as
a means of communion with the Church from whence
they came ; but his allowance or confirmation gave
them all the authority they had in England.
It is a point so plain in history, that it is beyond Before the
Conquest.
question, that during all the time from St Gregory to
the Conquest, the British, Saxon, and Danish Kings
(without any dependence on the Pope) did usually
make Ecclesiastical Laws. Witness the laws 1 of ^E-
thelbirht, Ine, Wihtra?d, Alfred, Edward, ^Ethelstan,
Edmund, Edgar, Ethelred, Cnut, and Edward the
Confessor ; among whose laws 2 , one makes it the
office of a King, to govern the Church as the Vicar
of God.
Indeed, at last the Pope was officiously kind, and
did bestow after a very formal way upon the last of
those Kings. Edward the Confessor, a privilege, which
all his predecessors had enjoyed as their own undoubted
right before, viz. the protection of all the Churches
of England, and power to him and his successors the
Kings of England for ever, ' in his stead to make just
ecclesiastical Constitutions, with the advice of their
Bishops and Abbots 3 .' But with thanks to his Holi
ness, our Kings still continued their ancient custom
1 [See 'Ancient Laws and Institutes,' ed. Thorpe. Vol. i.]
- [Leges Edw. Conf. sec-t. xvm. Vol. i. p. 499.]
: I'Vid. Spelinan. Coucil. Tom. i. p. G34.]
10 o
148 POSSESSION. [CHAP. X.
which they had enjoyed from the beginning, in the
right of the Crown, without respect to his courtesy
in that matter.
Alter the After the Conquest, our Norman Kings did also
Conquest. . .
exercise the same legislative power in ecclesiastical
causes over ecclesiastical persons from time to time,
with the consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal.
Hence all those statutes concerning benefices, tithes,
advowsons, lands given in mortmain, prohibitions,
consultations, prcemunires, quare-impedits, privilege of
clergy, extortions of ecclesiastical courts or officers,
regulations of fees, wages of priests, mortuaries, sanc
tuaries, appropriations ; and in sum, as Bishop Bram-
hall adds, "all things which did belong to the external
subsistence, regiment, and regulating of the Church 1 ';"
and this in the reigns of our best Norman Kings be
fore the Reformation.
But what laws do we find of the Pope's making
in England ? Or what English law hath he ever effec
tually abrogated ? It is true many of the Canons of
the Church of Rome were here observed ; but before
they became obliging, or had the force of laws, the
King had power in his great Council to receive them,
if they were judged convenient, or if otherwise to
reject them.
It is a notable instance that we have of this, in
Henry the Third's time 2 . When some Bishops pro
posed in Parliament the reception of the ecclesias
tical Canon, for the legitimation of children born be-
1 p. 73; [Works, Vol. i. pp. 138, 139 ; ed. 1842.]
2 20 Hen. III. c. 9. [This and the following instance are also
from Bramhall, ubi supra, p. 140.]
CHAP. X.] POSSESSION. 149
fore marriage, all the Peers of the Realm stood up,
and cried out with one voice, ' Nolumus leges Anglice
nmtari? 'we will not have the laws of England to be
changed.' A clear evidence that the Pope's Canons
were not English laws, and that the Popish Bishops
knew they could not be so, without the Parliament.
Likewise the King and Parliament made a legis
lative exposition 1 of the Canon of the Council of
Lyons, concerning bigamy; which they would not have
done had they not thought they had power according
to the fundamental laws of England, either to receive
it or reject it.
These are plain and undeniable evidences, that
when Popery was at highest, the Pope's Supremacy
in making laws for the English Church was very inef
fectual, without the countenance of a greater and
more powerful, viz., the supremacy of our own Kings.
Now admit that during some little space the Pope
did impose, and England did consent to the authority Consent
of his Canons, (as indeed the very rejecting of that *'
authority intimates) ; yet that is very short of the
possession of it without interruption for nine hun
dred years together, the contrary being more than
evident.
However this consent was given either by permis- By pcr-
sion or grant. If only by permission, whether through m
fear or reverence, or convenience, it signifies nothing,
when the King and kingdom sec cause to vindicate
our ancient liberties, and resolve to endure it no
longer.
i 4 Edw. I. c. 5.
150 POSSESSION. [CHAP. X.
()r h y If a errant be pretended, it was either from the
fjrant. _ *
King alone, or joined with his Parliament. If from
the King alone, he could grant it for his time only,
and the power of resuming any part of the prerogative
granted away by the predecessors, accompanies the
Crown of the successor ; and fidelity to his office and
kingdom oblige th him in justice to retrieve and re
cover it.
I believe none Avill undertake to affirm, that the
grant was made by the law, or the King with his Par
liament ; yet if this should be said and proved too, it
would argue very little to the purpose ; for this is to
establish iniquity by a law. The King's prerogative,
as head of this Church, lieth too deep in the very
constitution of the kingdom, the foundation of our
common law, and in the very law of nature ; and is
no more at the will of the Parliament, than the fun
damental liberties of the subject.
Lastly, the same power that makes can repeal a
law : if the authority of papal Canons had been ac
knowledged, and ratified by Parliament (which cannot
be said), it is most certain it was revoked and re
nounced by an equal power, viz., of Henry the Eighth,
and the whole body of the kingdom, both civil and
ecclesiastical.
It is the resolution both of reason and law, that
no prescription of time can be a bar to the Supreme
Power ; but that for the public good it may revoke
any concessions, permissions or privileges. Thus it
was declared in Parliament in Edward the Third's
reign, when reciting the statute of Edward the First ;
CHAP. X.] POSSESSION. 151
they say 1 , ' the statute holdeth always in force, and
that the King is bound by oath to cause the same
to be kept,' (and consequently, if taken away, to be
restored to its observation) ' as the law of the land : '
that is, the common, fundamental, unalterable law of
the land.
Besides the case is most clear, that when Henry
VIII. began his reign, the laws asserting the Supreme
Authority in causes, and over persons ecclesiastical,
were not altered or repealed ; and Henry VIII. used
his authority against papal incroachments, and not
against, but according to the statute, as well as the
common law of the land. Witness all those noble
laws of Provisors and Prcemunire, which (as my Lord
Bramhall 2 saith) "we may truly call the palladium of
England, which preserved it from being swallowed up
in that vast gulph of the Roman Court ; made by
Edward I., Edward III., Richard II., Henry IV."
i [27 Erhv. III. ' Preamble.']
- [Schism Guarded. Part i. Disc. iv. ; Works, Vol. n. p. 433.]
CHAPTER XL
OF THE POWER OF LICENCES, &c. HERE, IN
EDWARD III., RICHARD II., HENRY IV.,
HENRY V., HENRY VI., HENRY VII.
THOUGH the Pope be denied the legislative and
judiciary (or executive) power in England, yet,
if he be allowed his dispensatory power, that will have
the effect of laws, and fully supersede or impede the
execution of laws, in ecclesiastical causes, and upon
ecclesiastical persons.
It is confessed, the Pope did usurp and exercise
this strange power, after a wonderful manner in Eng
land, before Henry VIII., by his licences, dispensa
tions, impositions, faculties, grants, rescripts, dela-
gacies, and other such kind of instruments, as the
statute 25 Henry VIII. mentions l ; and that this
power was denied or taken from him by the same
statute, (as also 2 by another, 28 Henry VII.,) and
placed in (or rather reduced to) the jurisdiction of
the Archbishop of Canterbury, saving the rights of
the See of York, in all causes convenient and ne
cessary for the honour and safety of the King, the
wealth and profit of the Realm, and not repugnant to
the laws of Almighty God.
The grounds of removing this power from the
Pope, as they are expressed in that excellent pre-
i 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21. 2 28 Hen. VIII. c. 16.
CHAP. XL] POSSESSION. 153
amble to the said statute 1 , 25 Henry VIII., are
worthy our reflection : they are
(1) The Pope's usurpation in the premises.
(2) His having obtained an opinion in many of
the people, that he had full power to dispense with
all human laws, uses, and customs, in all causes spi
ritual.
(3) He had practised this strange usurpation for
many years.
(4) This his practice was in great derogation of
the imperial Crown of this realm.
(5) England recogniseth no superior, under God,
but the King only, and is free from subjection to any
laws but such as are ordained within this realm, or
admitted customs by our own consent and usage, and
not as laws of any foreign power.
(6) And lastly, that according to natural equity,
the whole state of our realm in Parliament hath this
power in it, and peculiar to it, to dispense with, alter,
abrogate, &c., our own laws and customs for public
good ; which power appears by wholesome Acts of
Parliament, made before the reign of Henry VIII., in
the time of his progenitors.
For these reasons it was enacted 2 in those sta
tutes of Henry VIII., ' That no subject of England
should sue for licences, &c., henceforth to the Pope,
but to the Archbishop of Canterbury.'
Now it is confessed before, and in the preamble
to the statute, that the Pope had used this power for
many years ; but this is noted as an aggravation of
1 [c. 21.] 2 [25 Hen. VIII. c, 21. $ 2.]
POSSESSION. [CHAP. XL.
the grievance, and one reason for redress ; but
whether he enjoyed it from the time of Saint Austin,
or how long quietly, is the proper question ; especially
seeing the laws of the land, made by king Henry's
predecessors, are pleaded by him in contradiction
to it.
Jance'i ioo ^ Ga ' w ^ w *^ come forth and shew us one instance
(hr?st after f a P a P a * Dispensation in England for the first eleven
hundred years after Christ ? If not, five hundred of
the nine hundred years' prescription, and the first five
hundred too, as well as the first eleven hundred of
the fifteen, are lost to the Popes, and gained to the
prescription of the Church of England. But
Did not the Church of England, without any
reference to the Court of Rome, use this power
during the first eleven hundred years ? What man is
so hardy as to deny it, against the multitude of plain
instances in history ?
Did not our Bishops relax the rigour of ecclesias
tical Canons? Did not all Bishops, all over the
Christian world, do the like before the monopoly was
usurped l ?
In the laws of Alfred alone 2 , and in the conjoint
laws 3 of Edward and Guthrum, how many sorts of
ecclesiastical crimes were dispensed with, by the sole
1 [" According to Thomassin (Vet. ct Nov. Eccl. Discip. Tom. n.
p. 606) dispensations and licences were originally granted to all
Bishops; but gradually in the tenth and following centuries, they
were allowed to devolve to, or were usurped by, the Roman pon
tiffs." Mr Palmer's 'Treatise on the Church,' Vol. i. p. 33f>; ;)rd
edit.]
' 2 [See 'Ancient Law^ and Institutes,' cd. Thorpe, Vol. l. pp. 44.
i si-(|i|.! :i [Ilid. pp. I<;(J, et seqq.]
CIIAI-. XL] POSSESSION. 155
authority of the King and Church of England ; and
the like we find in the laws of some other Saxon
kings.
Dunstan the archbishop had excommunicated a
great count : he made his peace at Rome ; the Pope
commands his restitution. Dunstan answered l , " I
will obey the Pope willingly when I see him penitent,
but it is not God's will that he should lie in his sin
free from ecclesiastical discipline to insult over us.
God forbid that I should relinquish the law of Christ
for the cause of any mortal man." This great instance
doth tAvo things at once, justifieth the Archbishop's,
and destroyeth the Pope's authority in the point.
The Church of England dispensed with those
irreligious nuns in the days of Lanfranc 2 , with the
counsel of the King ; and with queen Maud :i , the wife
of Henry the First, in the like case, in the days of
Anselm, without any suit to Rome or foreign dis
pensation.
These are great and notorious and certain in
stances ; and when the Pope had usurped this power
afterwards, it is observed that as the 'Delected Cardi
nals' style the avaricious dispensations of the Pope 4
' sacrilegious/ so our Statutes of Pro visors 5 expressly
say, they are "the undoing and destruction of the
common law of the land."
1 [Apud Spclman, Concil. Tom. i. p. 481.]
' 2 Lanfranc, epist. xxxn. [Opp. p. 316, col. 2. c : od. Paris.
L648.]
:! Eadmer, [Hist. Nov.] pp. 56, ;>7.
4 [Sec the document referred to in Brown's Appendix to the
'Fasciculus Rcrum,' etc.. pp. 232, ct
25 Edw. III. [Stat. vi. c. 2.]
156 POSSESSION. [CHAP. XL
Accordingly, the King, Lords and Commons, com
plained of this abuse, as a mighty grievance ; "of
the frequent coming among them of this infamous
messenger, the Pope's Non-obstante," (that is, his dis
pensations), "by which oaths, customs, writings, grants,
statutes, rights, privileges, were not only weakened,
but made void 1 ."
Sometimes these dispensative Bulls came to legal
trials. Boniface VIII. dispensed with the law whereby
the Archbishop of Canterbury was Visitor of the Uni
versity of Oxford, and by his Bull exempted the
University from his jurisdiction; and that Bull was
decreed void in Parliament by two successive Kings,
as being obtained to the prejudice of the Crown, the
weakening of the laws and customs of the kingdom,
in favour of heretics, Lollards, &c and to the pro
bable ruin of the said University 2 .
In interruption of this Papal usurpation, were those
many laws made 25 Edward I. and 35 Edward I.,
25 Edward III. and 27 & 28 Edward III., and after
wards more expressly in the sixteenth 3 of Richard II.,
where complaining of processes and censures upon
Bishops of England, because they executed the King's
commandments in his courts, they express the mis
chiefs to be ' the disinherison of the Crown,' ' the
destruction of the King, laws, and realm ;' that ' the
Crown of England is subject to none under God ;' and
1 Mat. Paris, A.I. 1246, [p. 699 ; ed. 1639.]
2 [Twysdcn (Hist. Vindication, pp. 84, 85, new c d.) narrates
the circumstances at length, from the Rolls of Parl. 13 Hen. IV.
$$ 15, 16, 17.]
3 [c. 5; Statute of Prsemunire.J
CHAP. XL] POSSESSION. J 57
both the clergy and laity severally and severely pro
test to defend it against the Pope ; and the same
King contested the point himself with him, and would
not yield it 1 .
" An excommunication by the Archbishop, albeit it-
be disanulled by the Pope or his legates, is to be
allowed ; neither ought the Judges to give any allow
ance of any such sentence of the Pope or his legate,"
according to 16 Edward III. Tit. Excom. 4. 2
For the Pope's Bulls in special, our laws have
abundantly provided against them, as well in case of
excommunication as exemption 3 , as is evidenced by
my Lord Coke out of our English laws 4 . He mentions
a particular case, wherein the Bull was pleaded for
evidence that a person stood excommunicate by the
Pope ; but it was not allowed, because no certificate
testifying this excommunication appeared from any
Bishop of England 5 .
So late as Henry IV. 6 , " if any person of religion
obtain of the Bishop of Rome to be exempt from
obedience, regular or ordinary, he is in case of a prce-
munire ; which is an offence contra regem, coronam et
dignitatem suas"
1 [Viz. in the case above mentioned, when the pope had
exempted the University of Oxford from the jurisdiction of Arch
bishop Arundel.]
2 Lord Coke, Caudrey's Case, [Reports, Part v. fol. 14, b ; ed.
1624.]
3 Vid. 30 Edw. III. Lib. Ass. Placit. 19.
4 Ubi supra, fol. 15, b.
5 [See Coke, ubi supra ; the authority is] 31 Edw. III. Tit.
Excom. 6. The same again, 8 Hen. VI. fol. 3, [Coke, fol. 26, a] ;
12 Edw. IV. fol. 16, [Coke, fol. 27, a]; 2 Rich. III. fol. 22, [Coke,
27, b] ; 1 Hen. VII. fol. 10, [Coke, 27, b.]
6 Stat. 2 Hen. IV. c. 3, [in Coke's Reports, Part v. fol. 23, b.]
158
POSSESSION.
[ClIAP. XI.
Again more plain to our purpose, in Henry the
Fifth's time, after great complaint in Parliament of
the grievances, by reason of the Pope's licences to
the contrary, it was enacted 1 , that "the King, willing
to avoid such mischiefs, hath ordained and established,
that all the incumbents of every benefice of holy
Church of the patronage... of spiritual patrons, might
quietly enjoy their benefices without being inquieted...
by any colour of provisions, licences and acceptations
by the Pope, and that all such licences and pardons
upon, and by such provisions made in any manner,
should be void and of no valour ; and that the mo-
lestors, &c by virtue thereof incur the punishments
contained in the Statutes of Provisors before that
time made."
" The King only may grant or licence to found a
spiritual incorporation" as it is concluded by our
law 2 , even in Henry the Sixth's time.
Further, in Edward the Fourth's reign, " the Pope
granted to the Prior of Saint John's to have a sanc
tuary within his priory ; and this was pleaded and
claimed by the Prior ; but it was resolved by the
Judges, that the Pope had no power to grant any
sanctuary within this realm, and therefore by judg
ment of the law it was disallowed 3 ."
We have thus, fully I hope, justified the words of
the statute of Henry VIII., that the laws made in the
times of his predecessors, did in effect the same
things ; especially those of Edward I.. Edward III..
1 Stat. 3 Hen. V. c. 4; [Coke, ibid. tol. 2r>. a.J
-' 9 Hen. VI. fol. 1(5, b; [Coke, il.id. fol. 2(, a.J
' 1 Hon. VII. tol. 20: [Coke, ibil.|
CHAP. XL] POSSESSION, 159
Richard IL, Henry IV., which that Parliament, 24
Henry VIII., refer us to 1 , expressly and particularly.
and how small time is left, for the Pope's prescrip
tion (if any at all for his quiet possession) of the
power of licences in England. Yet it is confessed he
had usurped, and by several instances been heedlessly,
or timorously permitted, to exercise such a power, for
many years together, as the Parliament acknowledg-
eth ; though contrary to the ancient liberty, the com
mon law, and so many plain decrees of our Judges,
and statutes of the land from age to age, as have
appeared.
i 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12
OF THE PATRONAGE OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH
IN OUR KINGS BY HISTORY LAW.
THIS flower of the Crown was derived from our
ancient English and British kings to William the
Conqueror, William Rufus, and Henry I. ; who enjoyed
the right of placing in vacant Sees, by the tradition of
a ring and a crosier-staff, without further approbation,
ordination, or confirmation from Rome, for the first
eleven hundred years. Indeed then Hildebrand 1 , and
after Calixtus 2 , did condemn and prohibit all investi
tures taken from a lay hand.
That before Hildebrand this was the undoubted
right of the Crown, is evident both by history and
la\v.
L For history, we find Malmsbury notes 3 , that king
History.
Edgar did grant to the monks of Glastonbury " the
free election of their Abbot for ever :" but he " re
served to himself and to his heirs" the power to
invest the brother elected " by the tradition of a
pastoral staff."
Therefore Ingulph 4 the Abbot of Croyland, in the
time of the Conqueror, saith, " For many years (he
might have said ages) past, there hath been no free
1 [A.D. 1080; Vid. Labb. Concil. Tom. x. 381.]
2 [i. e. Calixtus II. A.B. 1119; Labb. Concil. Tom. x. 862, can. n.]
3 Malmesbur. de Gestis Regum, Lib. n. [p. 57 ; ed. 1601.]
4 [Histor. p. 896 ; inter Rerum Angl. Script, ed. Francofurt.
1601.]
CHAP. XII.] POSSESSION. 161
election of prelates ; but the King's Court did confer
all dignities, according to their pleasure, by a ring
and a crosier. 5 '
Lanfranc desired of William the Conqueror the
patronage of the Abbey of St Austin ; but the King-
answered, "that he would keep all the crosier-staffs"
(i. e. investitures) "in his own hand 1 ." The same is
testified of Anselm 2 himself by Eadmer : "He, after
the manner and example of his predecessor, was
inducted according to the custom of the land, and
did homage to the King as Lanfranc " (his predecessor
in the See of Canterbury) " in his time had done."
And William the agent of Henry I. protested openly
to Pope Paschal, " I would have all men here to
know, that my lord the King of England will not
suffer the loss of his investitures for the loss of his
kingdom 3 ." Indeed Pope Paschal was as resolute,
though it be said not so just in his answer : " I speak
it before God, Paschal the Pope will not suffer him to
keep them without punishment, no, not for the re
demption of his head 4 ."
Here was indeed a demand made with confidence
and courage ; but had that Pope no better title than
that of possession to claim by, he had certainly none
at all. For (as Eadmer 9 concludes) " the cause seemed
a new thing (or innovation) to this our age, and
unheard of to the English, from the time that the
1 [Gervas. Dorobern, col. 1327 ; inter Scriptores x ]
2 Eadmer. Hist. Nov. p. 20 ; [ed. Selden.]
Ibid. p. 73. * [Ibid.]
5 In Prsefat. p. 2. [For much valuable information respecting
Investitures, see Bp. Carleton's 'Jurisdiction,' Chap. vn. iv.
pp. 137161; ed. Lond. 1610.]
11
162 POSSESSION. [CHAP. XII.
Normans began to reign (that I say not sooner) ; for
from the time that William the Norman conquered
the land, no Bishop or Abbot was made before An-
selm, who did not at first do homage to the King, and
from his hand, by the gift of a crosier-staff, receive
the investiture to his Bishopric or Abbacy, except two
Bishops of Rochester ;" who were surrogates to the
Archbishop, and inducted by him by the King's leave.
Indeed now the Pope began to take upon him in
earnest, and to require an oath of fidelity of the
Archbishop when he gave him the pall, and to deny
that pall if he would not take it. A new oath never
before heard of, or practised : " an oath of obe
dience" to himself, as it is expressly called in the
edition 1 of Gregory XIII. an oath not established
by any Council, but only by papal authority, by Pas-
chalis himself, as Gregory IX. recordeth 2 .
This oath at first, though new, was modest, bound
ing the obedience of the Archbishops only by the
rule of the holy Fathers, as we find in the old Roman
Pontifical ; but it was quickly changed from ' Regulas
Sanctorum Patrum' to 'Regalia Sancti Petri.' "The
change," as my lord Bramhall observes, " in letters
was not great, but in sense abominable 3 ."
Bellarmine 4 would persuade us, that the like oath
1 [Greg. IX. Decretal. Lib. i. ' de Electione/ etc, cap. iv. ; in
the ' Corpus Juris Canonici.' These decretals were published
' cum privilegio Gregor. XIII.']
2 [Ibid., and compare Twysden's Vindication, pp. 63, 64.]
3 [See Bramhall's ' Schism Guarded.' Part I. Disc. iv. ; Works,
Vol ir. p. 419.]
4 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. in. c. 2; in Disput. Tom i. p. 193, B;
ed. Colon. 1628.]
CHAP. XII.] POSSESSION. lt!3
was given in Gregory the First's time ; but that was
nothing like an oath of obedience, and was only an
oath of abjuration of heresy, not imposed but taken
freely ; no common oath of Bishops, nor any thing-
touching the royalties of St Peter, as may be seen in
Gregory's Epistles 1 .
About an hundred years after, in the time of
Gregory the Ninth, they extended 2 the subjects of the
oath as well as the matter ; enlarging it from Arch
bishops to all Prelates, Bishops, Abbots, Priors ; and
now they cry up the Canons above all imperial Laws.
But to decide this point of swearing allegiance to
the Pope (which could not be done without going in
person to Rome), it is sufficient that by all our laws,
no clergyman could go to Rome without the King's
licence, and that by an ancient Britannic law, " If any
subject enter into league with another" Prince, "pro
fessing fidelity and obedience to any one" besides the
King, " let him lose his head 3 ."
But let us admit that the Pope, eleven hundred
years after Christ, got possession of the English
Church, and the conscience of the Bishops by investi
tures and oaths; who will shew us that he had it
sooner? Who will maintain that he kept it quietly
till'Henry VIII. ?
This last point will be clear, by examining our II.
laws, the second topic propounded at the beginning
1 [Lib. x. ep. xxxi. c. 31. Indict, v. : Cf. Twysden's Vindica
tion, p. 64 ; and Bramhall, ubi supra.]
2 [Twysden, p. 65.]
3 Hector. Boeth. Hist. Scot. Lib. xn. [quoted by Bramhall.
Vol. ii. p. 422.]
112
164 POSSP^SSION. [CHAP. XII.
of this discourse. For if his possession were good,
it was settled in law, and if quiet, the laws were
not made to oppose it, by the great States of the
kingdom.
My lord Bramhall 1 hath produced three great
laws, as sufficient to determine this controversy, whe
ther the King or the Pope be Patron of the English
Church, the Assize of Clarendon, the Statute of Car
lisle, and the Statute of Provisors. The first tells us
plainly, that ' the election of an Archbishop, Bishop,
Abbot, or Prior, Avas to be made by the respective
dignitaries upon the King's calling them together to
that purpose, and with the King's consent. And
there the person elected was presently to do homage
to the King as to his liege lord 2 .'
And that this method was exclusive of the Pope.
2 Statute the Statute of Carlisle 3 is very distinct : " The King is
of Carlisle.
the founder of all Bishoprics, and ought to have the
custody of them in the vacancies, and the right of
patronage to present to them"; and that "the Bishop
of Rome, usurping the right of patronage, giveth
them to aliens"; that this " tendeth to the annullation
of the state of holy Church, to the disinheriting of
Kings, and the destruction of the realm ": " this is an
oppression, and shall not be suffered."
3. statute The Statute of Provisors, 25 Edward III., affirms,
of Provi
sors. that " elections were first granted by the King's pro
genitors, upon condition to demand licence of the
King to choose, and after the election to have the
1 [Schism Disarmed, Part i. Disc. iv. Vol. n. p. 407.]
2 [Mat. Paris, Hist. Major. A.D. 1164, p. 101.]
s [35 Edw. I. c. 4. $ 3.]
CHAP. XII.] POSSESSION. 165
royal assent ;... which conditions not being kept, the
thing ought by reason to resort to his first nature."
And therefore they conclude, that "in case reserva
tion, collation, or provision, be made by the Court of
Rome, of any Archbishopric, &c....the King and his
heirs shall have the collations for the same time...
such as his progenitors had before the free elections
were granted 1 ."
And they tell the King plainly, that " the right of
the Crown, and the law of the land is such," that the
King " is bound to make remedies and laws against
such mischiefs 2 ." And they acknowledge "that he
is advowee paramount immediate of all churches, pre
bends, and other benefices, which are of the advowry
of holy Church :" i. e. sovereign Patron of it.
My Lord Coke more abundantly adds the resolu
tions and decrees of the law, to confirm us in the
point. In the time of William I., " it is agreed that
no man can make any appropriation of any church
having cure of souls, but he that hath ecclesiastical
jurisdiction ; but William I. did make such appropria
tions of himself, without any other 3 .' 1
" Edward I. presented his clerk, who was refused
by the Archbishop, for that the Pope by way of pro
vision had conferred it on another. The King brought
his Quare non admisit, the Archbishop pleaded that
the Bishop of Rome had long time before provided to
the same church as one having supreme authority,
and that he durst not, nor had power to put him out,
1 [25 Edw. III. Stat. vi. S S 3.] * [Ibid. S S 2.]
3 7 Edw. III. Tit. 'Quare Impcdit,' 19 : [Coke, Catidroy's Case ;
Reports, Part v. fol. 10, b.]
166 POSSESSION. [CUAI-. XII.
which was by the Pope's bull in possession; for which,
...by judgment of the common law, the lands of his
whole Bishopric were seized into the King's hands,
and lost during his life 1 ." And my lord Coke's note 2
upon it is, that this judgment was before any statute
was made in that case.
In the reign of Edward III., " it is often resolved
that all the Bishoprics within England were founded
by the King's progenitors, and therefore the advow-
sons of them all belong to the King, and at the first
they were donative ; and that if an incumbent of any
church die, if the patron present not within six months,
the Bishop of that diocese ought to collate... if he be
negligent by the space of six months, the Metropo
litan of that diocese shall confer one to that church ;"
and lastly, by the common law the lapse is to the
King, as to the supreme within his own kingdom, and
not to the Bishop of Rome 3 .'
This King presented to a benefice, his presentee
was disturbed by one that had obtained Bulls from
Rome, for which offence he was condemned to per
petual imprisonment 4 .
It is no small spice of the King's ecclesiastical
patronage, that we find the King made Canons secular
to be regular 5 ; and that he made the Prior and Con
vent of Westminster a distinct corporation from the
Abbot 6 .
But more full is the case of Abbot Morris 7 , who
1 [Coke's Reports, ubi supra, fol. 12, b.] 2 [Ibid.]
3 [Coke, ubi supra, fol. 14, b.] 4 [Fol. 15, a.J
s [Fol. 16, b.] 6 [Fol. 17, a.]
7 [Fol. 16, b.]
CHAP. XII.] POSSESSION. 167
sent to Rome to be confirmed by the Pope ; who by
his bull slighted the election of Morris, but gave him
the Abbey, of his spiritual grace, and at the request
(as he feigned) of the King of England. This Bull
was read and considered of in Council, that is, before
all the Judges of England ; and it was resolved by
them all, that this Bull was against the laws of Eng
land, and that the Abbot for obtaining the same was
fallen into the King's mercy, whereupon all his pos
sessions were seized into the King's hands.
In the reign of Richard II., one sued a provision
in the Court of Home against an incumbent, recovered
the church, brought an action of account for obla
tions, &c. ; but the whole Court was of opinion against
the plaintiff, and thereupon he became nonsuit 1 . See
statute 16 Richard II., c. 5, against all papal usurpa
tions, and this in particular ; the pain is a Prcemunire.
In Henry the Fourth's reign, " the Judges say that
the statutes which restrain the Pope's provisions to
the benefices of the advowsons of spiritual men were
made, for that the spiritualty durst not in their just
cause say against the Pope's provisions ; so as those
statutes were made, but in affirmance of the common
laws 2 ."
Now what remains to be pleaded in behalf of the
Pope's patronage of our Church, at least as to his
possession of it, against so many plain and great evi
dences, both of law and deed ?
All pretences touching the Pope's giving the Pall
are more than anticipated ; for it is not to be denied.
1 [Ook, ubi supra, t'ol. 20, b.] - [Ibid. fol. 23, a.]
168 POSSESSION. [CHAP. XII.
but that was not held necessary, either to the conse
cration, confirmation, or investiture of the very Arch
bishop before Anselm's time : yea it is manifest that
Lanfranc, Anselm, and Ralph, did dedicate churches,
consecrate Bishops and Abbots, and were called Arch
bishops, while they had no pall, as Twysden proves
out of Eadmer 1 .
We never read that either Laurentius or Mellitus
received the pall from Rome, who no doubt were as
lawful Archbishops as Austin. Girald 2 and Hoveden 3
both give us an account that Samson of St David's
had a pall, but do not say from Rome ; though in the
time of infection he carried it away with him. After
Paulinus there are five in the catalogue of York 4
expressly said to have wanted it (and Wilfrid was one
of them), yet are reputed both Archbishops and
Saints ; and of others in that series, it is not easy to
prove they ever used it, nor Adilbaldus, till the fourth
year after his investiture. And Gregory the Great
saith 5 , that it ought not to be given nisi fortiter postu-
lanti. What this honorary was anciently seems uncer
tain ; but it is most certain, it could not evacuate the
King's legal and natural patronage of our Church, or
discharge the Bishops from their dependence on, and
allegiance to, his Crown.
It is true indeed, when Pope Nicolaus could not
deny it, he was graciously pleased to grant this
1 [See Twysden's Vindication, pp. 64, 65 ; new editipn.]
a [Girald. Cambrensis, Itiner. Lib. n. c. i. p. 855.]
3 [R. de Hoveden, Annal., A.D. 1199, p. 798.]
4 [See authorities for these facts in Twysden, Hist. Vind. pp.
60, 61.]
5 [Epist. Lib. vji. op. "> : Indict. I.]
GUAP. XII.] POSSESSION. 169
patronage to Edward the Confessor 1 : " Vobis et pos-
teris vestris regibus committimus advocationem,' etc. 'We
commit the advowson of all the churches of England
to you and your successors, Kings of England.' It
might have been replied, ' Nicolaus Papa hoc domino
meo privilegium, quod ex paterno jure susceperat, prce-
buit' as the Emperor's advocate 2 said.
This is too mean as well as too remote a spring of
our kingly power in the Church of England, though it
might, ad hominem, sufficiently supersede (one would
think) all papal practices against so plain and full a
grant. If any thing passed by it, certainly it must be
that very power of advowson, that the Popes after
wards so much pretended, and our laws (mentioned)
were made on purpose to oppose them in.
We see no reason, therefore, against the statute
of Henry VIII. so agreeable to the ancient rights and
laws of this realm : ' Be it enacted, that no person
shall be presented, nominated, or commended to the
Pope, to or for the dignity of an Archbishop or Bishop
within this realm, nor shall send or procure there for
any manner of bulls, briefs, palls, or other things
requisite for an Archbishop or Bishop.'...' All such
(viz. applications and instruments) shall utterly cease,
and no longer be used within this realm ;' and such as
do ' contrary to this Act, shall run into the dangers,
pains, and penalties of the statute of the Provision
an d Prcemunire 3 . '
1 [Apud Ailrccl. de Vita Edw. Confessor, col. 388, 1. 53 ; inter
Scriptores x.]
2 Baron. Tom. xi. ad an. 1059, xxiu.
3 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20, [$ 2, 6.]
CHAPTER XI11.
OF PETER-PENCE, AND OTHER MONEYS
FORMERLY PAID TO THE POPE.
UPON complaint by Parliament, in Henry the
Eighth's reign, of intolerable exactions of great
sums of money by the Pope, as well in pensions,
censes, Peter-pence, procurations, &c., and for infinite
sorts of bulls, &c., otherwise than by the laws and
customs of the realm should be permitted ; it was
enacted 1 , that ' no person should thenceforth pay any
such pensions, Peter-pence, &c., but that all such pay
ments should thenceforth clearly surcease, and never
more be levied, taken, or paid,' and all annates or
first-fruits, and tenths, of Archbishops and Bishops
were taken away, and forbidden to be paid to the
Pope, the year before 2 .
Our payments to the Court of Home seem to have
been of four sorts, Peter-pence, first-fruits and tenths,
casual (for palls, bulls, &c.) and extraordinary taxa
tions. Briefly of each :
1. I. For Peter-pence (the only ancient payment),
Peter-
pence. it was at first given and received as an alms eleemo-
syna beati Petri, saith Paschalis II. 3 perhaps rendered
out of gratitude and reverence to the See of Home,
i 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21, [ 1.] a 23 Hen. VIII. c. 20.
3 Epist. Henrico I. apud Eadmer, p. 113, 1. 27. [On the subject
of payments to the Papacy, sec Twysrlen's Hist. Viud. (pp. 94, et
seqq.), from which this chapter was mainly derived.]
CHAP. XIII.] POSSESSION. 171
to which England was no doubt frequently obliged,
for their care and counsel and other assistances : and
by continuance this alms and gratitude obtained the
name of rent, and was metaphorically called some
times tributum 1 , but never anciently understood to
acknowledge the Pope as superior lord of a lay-fee.
But when the Pope changed advice into precept,
and counsel into law and empire, and required addi
tions, with other grievous exactions, unto his Peter-
pence, it was a proper time to be better advised of
ourselves, and not to encourage such a wild usurpation
with the continuance of our alms or gratitude.
This alms was first given by a Saxon king, but by
whom it is not agreed ; but that there was no other
payment besides this made to Rome before the year
1245 2 , appears for that, though there was much com
plaint and controversy about our payments, we find
the omission of no payment instanced in, but of that
duty only ; neither do the body of our kingdom in
their remonstrance 3 to Innocent IV., 1246, mention
any other as claimed from hence to Rome.
Yet this payment, as it was not from the begin
ning, and as it was at first but an alms ; so it was not
continued without some interruptions 4 , when Rome
had given arguments of sufficient provocation, both in
the times of William the First, and Henry his son,
and Henry the Second, This latter, during the dis
pute with Becket and Alexander III., commanded the
1 Vid. Twysden, [p. 95.]
2 [Vid. Mat. Paris, Hist. Major, A.U. 1245, p. 667, 1. 36.]
3 [Apud Mat. Paris, p. 698, 1. 51, etc.]
4 [Twysden, p. 95.]
172 POSSESSION. [CHAT. XIII.
sheriffs through England, that Peter-pence should be
gathered and kept, quousque inde dominus Rex volunta-
tem suam prceceperit 1 .
Historians observe that Edward III. during the
French war gave command, that no Peter -pence
should be gathered or paid to Rome 2 ; and the re
straint continued all that Prince's time ; for his suc
cessor Richard II., at the beginning of his reign,
caused John Wickliff to consider the point, who
concludes 3 , those payments being no other than alms,
the kingdom was not obliged to continue them longer
than it stood with its convenience, and not to its
detriment or ruin, according to the rule in divinity,
extra casus necessitatis et superfluitatis eleemosyna non
est in prcecepto.
Indeed, in the Parliament held the same year, the
question was made, and a petition 4 preferred (which
surely was some kind of disturbance of the payment)
against them, with no effect: the King restored them,
and the payment of them continued till Henry VIII.
2. II. So much for Peter -pence; for the other
First-
Fruits. payments, viz. First-fruits and Tenths, and the casual
payments for Bulls, &c., they so evidently depend on
the Pope's supremacy for legislation, jurisdiction, and
dispensation, that they are justly denied with it.
However, we shall briefly examine the rise and the
possession of them.
For the Annates and Tenths, which the Pope re
ceived from our Archbishops and Bishops, the his-
1 [Mat. Paris, A.D. 1164, p. 103, 1. 45.]
2 Stow's Chronicle, A.I>. 1365, p. 266, [cd. Lond. 1614.]
a [Twysden, p. 96.] * [Rot. Parl. 1 Ric. II. $ 84.]
. XIII.] POSSESSION. 173
torians agree, that England of all nations never sub
mitted to the full extent of the papal commands or
expectations; which no doubt was occasioned by the
good laws made here against them 1 .
There is difference amongst writers in whose time
the First-fruits began to be taken. Theodoricus a Niem
saith 2 , Boniface IX., about the tenth year of his go
vernment 3 , was the first that reserved them ; with
whom Platina 4 agrees, and Polydore Vergil 5 , and
many others (as Twysclen 6 notes) ; and Walsingham 7
reduces them but to 1316.
But the question is, how long the Pope quietly
enjoyed them ? The kingdom was so intolerably bur-
thened with papal taxes before (of which we shall
speak hereafter), and these First-fruits and Tenths
being a remembrance of those extraordinary taxes,
and a way devised to settle and continue them upon
us, they were presently felt and complained of. The
Parliament complained 8 in general of such oppres
sions, 25 Edward III. A. D. 1351 ; and again more par
ticularly, among other things of First-fruits, in the
fiftieth of Edward the Third, and desire his Majesty
' no collector of the Pope may reside in England 9 .'
1 [Twysden, pp. 99, 100.]
2 [De Schismate Universal!, Lib. n. c. 27 ; ed. Argent. 1609.]
3 [i.e. A.D. 1399.]
* De Vitis Pontif. in Bonif. IX. [p. 527; ed. 1664.]
r> De Rerum Inventoribus, Lib. vni. c. 2, [p. 463 ; ed. 1606.]
fi [pp. 106, 107.]
7 [Hist. Angl. AD. 1316, p. 108, 1. 42; inter Angl. Script, ed.
Camden.]
8 [Rot. Parl. 25 Edw. III. Octav. Purif. $ 13.]
9 Rot, Parl. 50 Edw. III. $$ H>"' U>f>.
174 POSSESSION. [CHAP. XIII.
The King not complying, they again instance the
year following, that ' the Pope's collector was as very
an enemy to this state as the French themselves ' ;
that he annually sent away twenty thousand marks,
and sometimes twenty thousand pounds ; and that he
now raised for the Pope the first-fruits of all dignities,
which in the very beginning ought to be crushed 1 .
Yet they prevailed not to their minds ; and in the
next Parliament 2 the Commons preferred three peti
tions ; first, touching the payment of First-fruits, not
used in the realm before these times : secondly, re
servation of benefices ; thirdly, bestowing them on
aliens, &c. praying remedy ; as also that the peti
tions of the two last Parliaments might be considered,
and convenient remedies ordained. The King here
upon refers the matters for remedy to his grand or
Privy Council 3 .
But neither yet was full satisfaction obtained (as
appears), for that the Commons renewed in effect the
same suits 4 in the third and fifth of Richard II., the
inconveniences still continuing : after which the next
Parliament obtained the statute of Prcemunire 5 , which
(as Polydore Vergil 6 observes) was a confining the
papal authority within the ocean. To which law three
years after some additions were made, and none of
these laws were repealed b}^ Queen Mary 7 .
1 Rot. Parl. 51 Edw. III. 78, 79.
2 Rot. Parl. 1 Ric. II. 66, 67, 68.
3 [See Twysden, pp. 108, 109.]
4 Rot. Parl. 3 Ric. II. 57 ; [5 Ric. II. in crastina Ani-
marum, 90, 91.] 5 13 Ric. II. Stat. n. c. 2 & 3.
fi [Angl. Hist. Lib. xx. p. 417, 1. 32, etc. ; ed. Basil, ir>70.]
' 16 Ric. II. c. 5 : [see Twysden, p. 110.]
CHAP. XIII.] POSSESSION. 175
To say the Bishops were pressed by the laity to
pass that last Act, is so much otherwise, as that it is
enrolled (as Twysden l observes) on the desire of the
Archbishop of Canterbury. Neither would the Pope
tolerate (as one 2 insinuates) any thing so exceedingly
prejudicial to him, upon any reasonable pretence
whatsoever.
In the same Parliament, the Commons petition
that ' the Pope's collector may have forty days for his
removal out of the kingdom 3 :' the King considers.
But in the sixth of Henry IV., upon grievous
complaints made by the Commons to the King, ' of
the horrible mischiefs and damnable customs which
were then introduced of new in the Court of Rome,
that none could have provision for an Archbishopric
or Bishopric, until he had compounded with the
Pope's chamber, to pay great and excessive sums of
money, as well for the First-fruits as other lesser
fees it was enacted, that whosoever should pay such
sums should forfeit all they had 4 .' This statute was
made about an hundred years before Henry VIII.,
an inconsiderable time for so considerable a pre
scription.
III. We have noted that the clergy of England 3 -
Payments
were not free from Roman taxations before the pay- extraordi
nary.
ment of Annates and Tenths, as they were afterwards
1 [p. Ill, the authority being the Rolls of Part. 16 Ric. II.
$ 20, in fine.]
2 [Persons, in his Answer to Coke's Reports, p. 335.]
3 [See the ' Rolls,' 13 Ric. II. $ 43. The king's answer is
equivalent to a refusal ; ' le roy s'avisera.'J
4 6 Henr. IV. c. 1: [seo Coke's ' Caudroy's Case/ fol. 23, b.]
176 POSSESSION. [CHAP. XIII.
stated : for there were occasional charges exacted
from us by the Pope, which afterwards terminated in
those constant payments, as before was intimated.
The first extraordinary contribution raised by
allowance for the Pope's use in this kingdom, Twys-
den observes to have been A. D. 1183 (far enough off
from the time of St Austin) ; when Lucius III. (at
odds with the citizens of Rome) sent to Henry II.,
' postulans auxilium of him and his clergy V Where
upon two things considerable are observed, (1) the
King, in this point concerning the Pope, consulted
his own clergy, and followed their advice ; (2) the
great care the clergy took to avoid ill precedents,
for they advised the King that he would receive the
moneys as given by them to him, and not to the Pope,
leaving the King to dispose it as he thought fit 2 .
This wariness being perceived, the Pope did not
suddenly attempt the like again. We do not find any
considerable sum raised from the body of the clergy
for the support of the papal designs, till Gregory IX.
demanded a tenth of all the moveables both of them
and the laity, A.D. 1229 3 . The temporal Lords re
fused, and the clergy unwillingly were induced to the
contribution, for it was no other.
The Pope ventured no more upon the laity, but
eleven years after 4 he demanded of the clergy a fifth
part of their goods ; and after many contests and
strugglings, and notwithstanding all the arguments 5
1 R. de Hoveden, A.D. 1183, [p. 622, 1. 17, etc.]
2 [See Twysden, pp. 99, 100.]
* [Mat. Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 361, 362.]
* [Ibid. A.n. 1240, p. 526, 1. 20.] 5 [Mat. Paris, p. 534.]
CriAP. XIII.] POSSESSION. 177
of the poor clergy, by the King's and Archbishop's
means, they were forced to pay it.
But neither that reluctancy, nor the remonstrance
of the kingdom at the Council of Lyons 1 , 1245, nor
that to the Pope himself the year following, could
prevail then to change the shoulder or the method of
oppression : for Innocent IV., 1246, invents a new 2
way, by charging every religious house with finding
of soldiers for his service for one year, which
amounted to eleven thousand marks 3 for that year ;
with many devices for his advantage. But did he go
on more quietly than he began ? No certainly : see
the petition 4 of the Commons in Parliament, 1376.
The two Cardinals Priests' agents 5 were not suf
fered to provide for them a thousand marks a-year
apiece ; but the state chased them out of the king
dom, and the King sent through every county, that
none henceforth should be admitted per Bullam, with
out the special licence of the King 6 .
And a while after, the Parliament held 20 Ed
ward III., 1346, petition 7 more plainly, and mention
the matter of the two Cardinals, as an intolerable
grievance ; in which the King gave them satisfaction.
However, the usurpation grows against all opposi
tion ; and it is no longer a tax for one year only, as at
1 [Mat. Paris, p. 666, 1. 51, etc.]
2 [Ibid. p. 701, 1. 56 ; p. 707, 1. 30 ; p. 708.]
3 [Ibid. p. 730, 1. 16.]
4 Rot. Parl. 50 Edw. III. 107 ; [Twysden, p. 102.]
5 [Rot. Parl. 17 Edw. III. 59; Thorn. Walsingham, p. 161,
1. 23.]
6 [Hen. de Knyghton, col. 2583, 1. 50.]
7 Rot. Parl. 20 Edw. III. $ 33. 3.1.
12
178 POSSESSION. [CHAP. XIII.
first, but for six years successively, pretending war
with infidels: so dealt John XXI. 1 , A.D. 1277, and
Clement V. 2 , in the Council of Vienne, 1311.
Exactions of this kind were so abominable, that
Martin V., at the Council of Constance, 1418, was
constrained to make that remedy 3 , ' Nullatenus impo-
nantur,' &c. upon which decree a supply of the tenth
being 1 twice demanded, viz. 1515 and 1518, by Leo X.
against the Turk, the English clergy denied them
both times 4 .
Thus the Papacy by little and little, and through
great opposition, at length brought the taxes to that
we now call tenths ; and annates proceeded gradually,
but by milder measures, to a like settlement ; yet nei
ther continued without the disturbances before men
tioned.
IV. There is nothing remains under the head of
4. money, but the casual and accidental profits, accruing
Casual
Payments, by Bulls and Licences, and lesser ways and conditions
of advantage, which did much help the rest to drain
us of our wealth. But these obtained upon private
persons, and many times in methods not cognizable
by law ; neither were the people so apt to complain
in such cases, because they had something (which
they unaccountably valued) for their money : and the
possession of a false opinion in the vulgar (as jugglers
and cheats may equally glory in) can never be soberly
1 [W. Thorn, col. 1926, 1. 29 ; inter Scriptores x.]
2 [Thorn. Walsingham, p. 99, 1. 14.]
3 Concil. Constant. Sess. XLIII., [apud. Labb. Concil. Tom. xn.
255.]
4 [Herbert's Life of Hen. VIII. pp. 57. 79: ed. 1072.]
CHAP. XIII. J POSSESSION. 179
interpreted to be a good and sufficient title to the
supremacy of the Church of England ; yet it is not
amiss to remember, that the Pope's messenger, John
de Obizis, for acting against the King's laws in get
ting money for his master, was cast into prison 1 .
Neither can we reasonably imagine but that much
of that vast sum 2 was gathered by those ways, which
in the reign of Henry III. the Lords and Commons
complain of. viz. that above eighty thousand marks
yearly was carried hence into Italy.
It was some disturbance of such kind of receipts,
that the law 3 forbids ' any such Bulls to be purchased
for the time to come upon pain of a Prcemunire ;' and
that it was decreed 4 that ' the Pope's collector, though
he have a Bull for the purpose, hath no jurisdiction
within this realm.'
And if the ancient law of the realm saith that the
Pope cannot alter the laws of England, that law con
demns his raising money upon the people in any kind,
without special law to that purpose ; a prerogative
the kings of England themselves do not claim. There
fore that standing fundamental law of England always
lay in bar against, and was a continual, real, and legal
disturbance of the Pope's possession of power to
impose taxes, or by any devices to collect money
from the English, either laity or clergy.
1 [Spencer's Life of Archbp. Chichele, p. 99; Loud. 1783:
Wilkins' Concil. Tom. in. p. 486.]
2 [Mat. Paris, A.D. 1246, pp. 715717; Carte's Hist, of Eng
land, Vol. H. p. 87. On the authority of these writers, the text
has been corrected from ' four hundred thousand pounds/ the
sum stated by Fullwood or his printer.]
3 Stat. 7 Hen. IV. c. 6 ; [see Coke, Reports, Part v. fol. 24, b.]
< 1 Hen. IV. fol. 9; [Coke, Ibid, fol. 22, b.]
122
CHAPTER XIV.
THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT FROM
PRESCRIPTION IT IS ON OUR SIDE NO
FORCE FOR THE POPE.
WE have seen what the argument from Prescrip
tion is come to, how far short of nine hundred
years, and how unsettled, both in law and practice, it
ever was, both as to jurisdiction in the Pope's court
at Rome and by his Legates here, and as to legis
lation by the force of his Canons, and his dispensation
by faculties, licences, and any sort of bulls, &c., and
as to his patronage of, or profits from, the English
Church.
If a just computation were made, I believe the
argument from Possession would really appear to be
on our side ; our Kings having enjoyed and flourished
in the exercise of supremacy over us ever since the Act
of Henry VIII. extinguishing the Pope's usurpation
here, with far more quiet and less interruption than
ever the Pope did for so long a time.
Besides, other qualifications of our King's pos
session do mightily strengthen the plea above any
thing that can be alleged on the Pope's behalf.
(1) Our Kings had possession from the beginning
according to the Canon 1 , and therefore could never
be lawfully divested : ancient histories are evident for
1 [An allusion probably to the sixth Nicene Canon, To
fdr; KpaTiT<a, K.T. X.]
CHAP. XIV.] POSSESSION. 181
us, and Baronius l determines well, ' what is said by a
modern concerning ancient affairs, without the autho
rity of any more ancient, is contemned.'
This ancient Possession of our Kings hath ever
been continued and declared and confirmed by our
laws, and the consent of the whole kingdom signified
thereby : and these laws have still been insisted on,
and repeated, when there hath been any great occa
sion, and fit opportunity to vindicate our ancient
liberties. But the Pope could never obtain any legal
settlement of his power here before Queen Mary's
reign ; nor by her neither in the main branches of it,
though indeed she courted him with the dignity of a
great name and a verbal title 2 .
Indeed, the subject of the question being a spi
ritual right, our adversaries themselves agree, that
Possession sufficient to prove it ought to begin near
Christ's time ; and he that hath begun it later (as
certainly the Pope did), unless he can evidence that
he was driven out from an ancienter possession (as
the Pope can never do), is not to be styled a pos
sessor, but an usurper, an intruder, an invader, diso
bedient, rebellious, and schismatical ; as no doubt by
S. W.'s logic the Pope is, as before was noted 3 .
I shall conclude with the grave and considerate
concession of Father Barnes (noted by Dr Stillingfleet 4 ),
1 Annal. Tom. i. ad an. 1, xn
2 [See Twysden's Vindication, p. 110.]
3 [See above, p. 114.]
4 [Vindication of Archbp. Laud, Vol. n. pp. 171, 172. The
whole of Barnes's ' Catholico-Romanus Pacificus' is printed in
Brown's Appendix to the ' Fasciculus Rerum' : for the passage in
question, see p. 839.]
182 POSSESSION. [CHAP. XIV.
who, after his thorough study of the point, upon clear
conviction determined it positively for us in these
words :
" The Britannic Church may plead the Cyprian
privilege, that it was subject to no Patriarch ; and
although this privilege was taken away by force and
tumult, yet being restored by the consent of the
kingdom in Henry the Eighth's time, and quietly
enjoyed since, it ought to be retained for peace' sake,
without prejudice of Catholicism, and the brand of
schism ;" by which he grants all that is pertinent to
our cause, (1) that the Pope had not possession here
from the beginning, nor ought to have had : (2) that
he took advantage, bellorum tumultibus et vi, for his
usurpation : (3) that our ancient Cyprian privilege was
restored by Henry the Eighth, totius Regni consensu,
' with the consent of the whole kingdom ' : (4) that
never since it had been peaceably prescribed (paciftce
prcescriptum), or quietly enjoyed : (5) and that there
fore it still ought to be retained, sine schismatis ullius
nota, 'without the brand or charge of schism,' which
is the only thing contended for.
THE ARGUMENT FROM INFALLIBILITY CON
SIDERED ; IN ITS CONSEQUENCE
RETORTED.
11 HE two last arguments for proof . of the Pope's
authority are general, and not limited to the
Church of England, as the three former were ; they
are his Infallibility, and his Universal Pastorship,
which remain to be examined.
From his Infallibility it may be argued thus : Whe- Argument.
ther the Pope were the means of our conversion, or
have a patriarchal right over us, or have had pos
session of the government of the English Church
heretofore or not, if he be really and absolutely infal
lible, he hath thereby a right to govern us ; and we
are bound to be ruled and directed by him. But the
Pope is really and absolutely infallible. Ergo, etc.
The consequence would tempt a denial : indeed, Consc-
Lnfallibility is an excellent qualification for an Uni
versal Rector, but are not qualification and com
mission two things? Hath God given authority to
every man equal to his parts, to his natural, acquired,
or infused abilities ? If not, what necessity is there
that he hath to the Pope ? If all power, as well as
all wisdom, is from God (the prime Fountain of them
both), and if we pretend to both, need we evidence
only one "?
Indeed, we ought to be guided by one that i^
184 INFALLIBILITY. [CHAP. XV.
infallible (if such a one there be) ; but the necessity
ariseth from prudence, not immediately from con
science ; unless by some other way of authority God
hath given him power to govern us, as well as ability :
otherwise we ought to submit ourselves to the guid
ance of the Pope, as a good and wise man, or as a
friend, as our ancestors did, and not as our lord.
The true question is, Whether God hath given
the power of government to the Pope, and directly
appointed him to be the Universal Pastor of his
Church on earth ; so that the controversy will bear
us down to the last Chapter, whatever can be said
here. And Infallibility is such a medium, as infallibly
runs upon that solecism of argument, obscurum per
obscurius ; and indeed, if there be any inseparable
connexion betwixt Infallibility and the Universal Pas
torship (as is pretended), the contrary is a lawfuller
way of concluding : viz. if there be no one man
appointed to govern the Church as Supreme Pastor
under Christ, then there is no necessity that any one
man should be qualified for it, with this wonderful
grace of Infallibility. But it doth not appear that
God hath invested any one man with that power ;
therefore not with that grace.
But lest this great Iloman argument should suffer
too much, let us at present allow the consequence ;
but then we must expect very fair evidence of the
assumption, viz. that the Pope is indeed infallible.
I am aware that there are some vexing questions
about the manner and subject of this Infallibility ; but
if we will put them out of the way, then the evidence
of the Pope's or Church of Rome's Infallibility breaks
CHAP. XV.] INFALLIBILITY. 185
out from three of the greatest topics we can desire,
Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Let them be heard
in their order.
SECTION I.
I. ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE FOR INFALLIBILITY,
viz. EXAMPLE HIGH PRIEST OF THE JEWS-
APOSTLES.
TT7HETHER it be an excess or defect of charity
in me I know not, but I cannot bring myself to
believe that the fiercest bigot of popery alive can
seriously think the Pope infallible, in the popish sense
of the word ; especially that the Holy Scriptures
prove it.
I know that some fly the absurdity, by hiding the
Pope in the Church : but if the Church be infallible,
it is so as it is representative in general Councils, or
diffusive in the whole body of Christians ; and then
what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome more than
to any other ? And how shall that which is common
to all give power to one over all ? Or what is it to
the Pope, above another Bishop or Patriarch ?
But ' the Pope is the Head and Universal Bishop
as he is Bishop of Rome.'
That is begging a great question indeed, for the
proof of the Pope's Infallibility (which his Infallibility
ought to prove), and to prove the medium by the
thing in question, after a new logic.
Besides, if the proper seat of Infallibility be the
Church, in either of the senses it concerns our adver
saries to solve Divine Providence ; who use to argue
186 INFALLIBILITY. fCiiAi- XV
for this wonderful gift in the Church, ' if there be no
Infallibility, God hath not sufficiently provided for the
safety of souls, and the government of his Church.'
For seeing the Church diffusive cannot be imagined
to govern itself, but as collected ; and seeing, as the
Christian world is now circumstantiated, it is next to
impossible we should have a general and free Coun
cil, how shall this so necessary infallible grace in the
Church be exerted, upon all occasions, for the ends
aforesaid ?
It is therefore most consonant to the Papal inte
rest and reason to lodge this infallible gift in the
Pope, or Court of Rome.
However, let us attend their arguments for the
evidence of it, either in the Pope, or Court, or Church
of Rome, in any acception ; which are first drawn
from Scripture, both examples and promises.
l - I. From Scripture-examples they reason thus :
Argument
from KX- < the High-priest with his clergy in the time of the
ample*.
Law were infallible ; therefore the Pope and his clergy
The High are so now. The High-priest with his clergy in the
Priest.
time of the Law were so, as appears from Deuter
onomy xvii. 8, where in doubts the people were
bound to submit and stand to their judgment, which
supposeth them infallible in it:' as T. C. argues 1 with
Archbishop Laud.
Answer. Dr Stillingflect 2 with others hath exposed this
argument beyond all reply. In short, the conse
quence of it supposeth what is to be proved for the
proof of Infallibility, vix. that the Pope is High-priest
1 [Laltyriuth. funtmir.] p. 97. $ 1.
* [Vindication, Vol. i j.p. .sso. MS].]
CHAP. XV.] INFALLIBILITY. 187
of the Christian Church ; and we must still expect an
argument for the Pope's Headship, if this must be
granted, that we may prove him infallible, to the end
we may prove his Headship. Were it said to the
Christian Church, when any controversy of faith aris-
eth, ' Go to Rome, and there inquire the judgment of
the Bishop, and believe his determinations to be infal
lible/ there had been no need of this consequence ;
but seeing we read no such thing, the consequence is
worth nothing.
Besides, the minor affirming the infallibility of the Minor.
High-priest from that law of appeal in Deuteronomy
xvii. 8, is justly questioned. There was indeed an
obligation on the Jews to submit and stand to the
judgment of that high Court, but no obligation nor
ground to believe the judgment infallible. The same
obligation lies upon Christians, in all judiciary causes,
especially upon the last appeal, to submit in our prac
tices, though not in our judgment or conscience to
believe what is determined to be infallibly true : a
violence that neither the whole world nor a man's self
can sometimes do to the reason of a man.
The text is so plain not to concern matters of
doctrine, to be decided whether true or false, but
matters of justice to be determined, whether right or
wrong, that one would think the very reading of it
should put an end for ever to this debate about it.
The words are, " If there' arise a matter too hard for
thce in judgment, between blood and blood, between
plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being-
matters of controversy within thy gates ; then shall
thou arise and gel thoe up inlo Ihe place which the
188 INFALLIBILITY. [CHAP. XV.
Lord thy God shall choose," &c. Thus God estab
lished a court of Appeal, a supreme court of Judica
ture, to which the last application was to be made,
both in case of injury and in case of difficulty, called
the great Sanhedrim. But note, here is no direction
for address to this court, but when the case had been
first heard in the lower courts, held in the gates of
the cities : therefore the law concerned not the mo
mentous controversies in religion, which never came
under the cognizance of those inferior courts.
Therefore it is not said, whosoever doth not be
lieve the judgment given to be true, but whosoever
acts contumaciously in opposition to it : " And the
man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken,
even that man shall die 1 ."
Besides, God still supposeth a possibility of error
in the whole congregation of Israel 2 , and chargeth
the priests with ignorance and forsaking his way, fre
quently by the Prophets.
But alas ! where was the Infallibility of the High-
priest, &c., when our blessed Saviour was condemned
by him, and by this very court of the Sanhedrim?
And when ' Israel had been for a long season without
the true God, without a teaching priest, and without
law 3 ?'
2. II. It is also argued from that example of the
The Apos
tles. Apostles under the New Testament, ' that they were
assisted with an infallible spirit, and there is the same
Answer, reason for the Pope.' But this is to dispose God's
i Deut. xvii. 12. 2 Lcvit. iv. 13.
3 2 Chron. xv. 3 : see Dr Stillingfloet, [Vindication, Vol. I.
)>. 384.]
CHAP. XV.] INFALLIBILITY. 1 89
gifts and wisdom by our own reason. The Apostles'
Infallibility, attested with miracles, was necessary to
the first plantation and state of the Church ; and it
no more followeth, that therefore the succeeding
Bishops must be infallible because they were so, than
that because Moses wrought miracles for the con
firmation of the Law, therefore the Sanhedrim should
work miracles for the ordinary government of Israel,
according to the Law.
Besides, what reason can be given why this pri
vilege of Infallibility should be entailed upon the
Bishops of Rome more than other Bishops, who suc
ceeded the infallible Apostles as well as the Pope ?
What ground hath he to claim it more than they?
Or if they have all an interest in it, what becomes of
the argument that the Pope is the Universal Head and
Governor of the Churh, because he is infallible ?
SECTION II.
ARGUMENT FROM THE PROMISES OF INFALLIBILITY.
G
OD hath promised that his Church shall be pre- II.
served, which promise engageth his infallible from Pro-
assistance : therefore the Church by that assistance is
always infallible.' To this mighty purpose T. C. rea
sons 1 with Archbishop Laud.
' God will certainly and infallibly have a Church,
therefore that Church shall not only be, but be infal
lible in all her decrees de fide.' Is not this strong Answer
1 [Labyrinth. Cantuar. p. 99, $ 3.]
1.90 INFALLIBILITY. [CHAP. XV.
reason"? God is infallible, therefore his Church is so ;
a Church shall continue, therefore it shall not err.
Pray what security doth the promise of the
Church's perpetuity, or infallibility as to fundamen
tals, give to any single person or particular Church,
that they shall continue in the Christian faith, more
than it did to seven Churches in Asia ? And where
are they now '?
The argument will conclude as well : God hath
promised his Church shall ever exist upon earth ;
therefore (1) Christians (of which the Church consists)
shall never die, as well as never fall away for if the
promise be made to the present Church in the Ro
manist's sense, it is made to the individuals that make
the Church (2) and that every particular Christian,
as well as every particular Church, having an equal
and common interest in the promise of assistance, is
infallible.
If we should grant the Universal Church to be
infallible, not only as to her perpetuity but her testi
mony, which the argument reacheth not ; yet it
rests to be proved that the Church of Rome is the
Catholic Church, and then that the .Pope is the
Church of Rome in the same sense that the Church
of Rome is the Catholic Church, and that in the same
consideration as the Catholic Church is infallible.
But if we consider the particular promises, the
argument thence is so Avide and inconclusive, that one
Avoukl think no considerate man could be abused by it.
These promises are such as concern the Apostles
and Church in general ; or such as are pretended to
dignify St Peter in special, and above the rest.
CHAV. XV. | INFALLIBILITY. 191
Such as concern the Apostles and the Church in General t,>
Apostles.
general are these three : " He that heareth you hear-
eth me 1 ," &c. True, while you teach me, that is my
doctrine. " I am with you alway, even unto the end
of the world 2 ." True, while you are faithful, and
teach whatsoever I command. " The Comforter, the
Holy Ghost, shall abide with you for ever 3 ." True
also, while you love me and keep my commandments :
as the condition is just before the promise.
Now what are these texts to the Pope or the
Church of Rome in special ? They certainly that
plead the promise should not neglect the duty ; it
were well if that was thought on.
The Pope's special friends insist on other promises
more peculiarly designed, as they would have them. St. Peter.
for St Peter's prerogative. They are these :
(1) The first is Matth. xvi. 18 : " Thou art Peter, Text i.
and upon this rock will I build my Church ; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
But what is this to St Peter's Infallibility ? The Answer.
Church shall not be overthrown, therefore St Peter is
infallible : what is this to the Pope's Infallibility? The
gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church,
therefore the Pope is infallible. Can God find no
other way to preserve the Church but St Peter's
Infallibility and the Pope's Infallibility?
Is this promise made to secure the Church under
St Peter and his successors absolutely from all error ?
How came St Peter himself to fall then, by denying
his master, and to err about the temporal kingdom 4
1 Luke x. 16. 2 Mat. xxviii. 20. John xiv. 16.
* Acts i. 6.
192 INFALLIBILITY. [CHAP. XV.
of Christ ? and Popes to be blasphemers, heretical l ,
atheistical ? How came so many particular Churches
that were under the Apostolic chair (if all were so at
first) to miscarry, as those first Churches in Asia did ?
But whatever is here promised to St Peter is
nothing to the Pope, unless the Pope be indeed St
Peter's successor, and sit in his chair, the great
point reserved for the last refuge, and shall there at
large be examined.
Text 2. The next promise is, John xxi. 16, " Peter, feed
my sheep ; " therefore the Pope is infallible. But
must not others feed Christ's sheep, and are they
infallible too ? It is acutely said 2 , that Peter was to
feed the sheep as ordinary pastor, the rest of the
Apostles as extraordinary ambassadors. But doth
this text say so, or any other text ? How came it to
pass that the ordinary pastor should be greater than
the extraordinary ambassadors ? How is it proved
that this power of feeding is infallible only as in
St Peter? or as such is transmitted to St Peter's
successor in a more peculiar manner than to the suc
cessors of other Apostles ? and that the Pope is this
successor ? This must be considered hereafter ; their
proof is not yet ready.
Text 3. Another is Luke xxii. 31 : " Simon, Simon, behold
Satan hath desired to winnow thee...but I have prayed
that thy faith fail not ;" viz. that thou perish not in
apostacy, not that thou be absolutely secured from
error, nor thy pretended successors. And had not
others the prayer 3 of Christ also, even all that should
1 [See above, p. 92, notes 2, 4.]
2 [See Stillingfleet's Vindication, n. 266, 267.] 3 John xvii. 20.
CHAP. XV.] INFALLIBILITY. 193
believe on him ? In a word, what is this to the Pope
that Peter should not utterly miscarry in the High-
priest's hall, unless it signify that the Pope may err
grievously, as St Peter did, though he hath no more
the security of not failing in the faith than every
ordinary Christian hath.
But this trifling with holy Scripture provokes re
buke, and deserves no answer.
If any desire further satisfaction, either upon
these or other like Scriptures urged for the Pope's
or the Church's Infallibility, let them peruse Dr Stil-
lingfleet 1 in defence of my Lord of Canterbury, and
Mr Pool's Treatise 2 written on purpose upon this
subject.
1 [See particularly Part i. c. viii. Part n. c. vii.J
2 [e. g. Matthew Pool's Treatise, entitled 'The Nullity of
the Romish Faith; or a Blow at the Root of the Romish Church,'
&c. &c.]
13
CHAPTER XVI.
SECOND ARGUMENT FOR INFALLIBILITY, viz.
TRADITION CONCESSIONS FOUR PRO
POSITIONSTHREE ARGUMENTS-
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
THAT the difference may not seem wider than
indeed it is, we shall make way for our discussion
of this argument by a few but considerable conces
sions.
(1) We yield that tradition truly catholic is
apostolical. Truly catholic, that is, in all the three
known conditions 1 , ab omnibus, semper, et ubique : for
we cannot imagine that any thing should be believed
or practised by all learned Christians at all times and
in all places, as a point of Christian Religion, that was
not received as such either from Christ himself or his
Apostles.
(2) We grant that tradition hath been, and ever
will be, both useful and necessary for the delivering
down to the faith of the Church, in all succeeding
ages, both the Canon of the Scripture, and the fun
damentals of the Christian Religion. The necessity
hereof ariseth from the distance of time and place,
and must be supposed, upon the succession of gene
rations in the Church, after the removal of the first
1 [The rule of Vincent of Lerins, in his ' Commonitorium/
cnp. iii.]
OIIAI-. XVI.] INFALLIBILITY. 195
preachers and writers, and consequently the first
deliverers thereof.
(3) We need not stick to agree that tradition is
infallible (if we abuse not the term too rigidly), in
conveying and preserving the substance of Religion ;
which I was much inclined to believe before, and am
now much encouraged to express, after I had read
the learned and ingenious book l of the ' Several Ways
of resolving Faith.' He concludes 2 , "that the neces
saries to salvation should ever fail to be practically
transmitted from generation to generation, is alike
impossible, as that multitudes of people should not in
every age be truly desirous of their own and their
posterity's everlasting happiness ; seeing it is a thing
both so easy to be done, and so necessary to salva
tion." By the substance of Christian Religion, I mean
the Credenda and the Agenda, or as he doth the Creed,
the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the
Two Sacraments.
(4) We may, for aught I see to the contrary,
gratify the author of Rush worth's 3 Dialogues, and the
abettors of that late new-found tradition of the present
1 [This treatise was published in 1677 anonymously. The com
plete title is ' The several Ways of resolving Faith in the Roman and
Reformed Churches, with the Author's impartial thoughts upon
each of them, and his own opinion at length shewn, wherein the
Rule of Faith consists ; which clears upon rational grounds the
Church of England from criminal schism, and lays the cause of
the separation upon the Roman/] 2 p. 129.
3 [So called by Archbp. Tillotson and others. The title of the
tract is 'The Dialogues of William Richworth; or the judgment of
common sense in the choice of Religion,' 8vo. Paris, 1640. The
real name of the author was Thomas White, a notorious polemical
writer ]
132
196 INFALLIBILITY. [CHAP. XVI.
Church of Rome. For every Church of Christ, as
such, hath possession of the substance of Christian
Religion, and without it cannot be a Church ; and I
am sure by this concession the great argument for
tradition is allowed, and we are so far agreed in a
main point.
I am troubled we must now differ ; but our pro
positions shall be such as none that have weighed
antiquity can well doubt of them.
Proposi- ^ e affirm, that whatsoever matter of faith or
practice is not derived from the first hands by tradi
tion catholic, as explained in the first concession, is
not necessary to salvation : for it is agreed, if it were,
it would have been preserved by tradition.
j s a .cvai ns t; all sense to believe that tradition
tion II.
is sufficient to secure us from all additions to the first
faith, or additions and alterations in ceremonies and
worship, or any thing that is not necessary to salva
tion. And herein, indeed, lies the controversy : for if
midwives, nurses, parents, and tutors have (as it is
said) tradition in their hands, and hold themselves
obliged not to poison little babes as soon as they can
receive instructions accordingly, and tradition could
not possibly admit or deliver any thing but what is
necessary to salvation, it were not possible for any
error to obtain in the Church, or with any one party,
or even member of it, but truth would be equally
catholic with tradition. And then charity will not
suffer us to believe that the Jews, that kept the Law,
should be guilty of any vain traditions, contrary to
our Saviour's reproofs ; or that there should be any
such parties as Huguenots and Protestants in the
CHAP. XVI.] INFALLIBILITY. . 1.07
world ; or such various sects in the Church of Eomc
itself; or so many successive additions to the faith
and worship of that Church, as none may have the
confidence to deny have happened.
" Vincentius speaks very truly" (saith Rigaltius 1 )
" and prudently, if nothing were delivered by our
ancestors but what they had from the Apostles ; but
under the pretence of our ancestors, silly or counter
feit things may by fools or knaves be delivered us for
apostolical traditions :" and we add, by zealously
superstitious men, or by men tempted (as is evident
they were about the time of Easter and rebaptization
in the beginning) to pretend tradition to defend their
opinions when put to it in controversy.
It further follows, that the Infallibility of the
tionlll.
Pope, or Court of Eome, or Church, in matters of
faith, is no necessary point of faith ; because it is not
delivered down to us as such by lawful, i. e. catholic,
tradition : this is the point.
Now here we justly except against the testimony
of the present oral tradition of the Eoman Church, or
tradition reversed, because it cannot secure us against
additions to the faith. It is no evidence that tradi
tion was always the same in that point ; it cannot bear
against all authentic history to the contrary.
That Popes, and Councils, and Fathers, and the
Church too, have erred in their belief and practice, is
past all doubt, by that one instance of the Communion
of Infants for some hundred of years together ; which
is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent 2 .
1 Observ. in Cyprian, p. 147; [Cyprian. Opp. Paris. 1666.]
2 [Scss. xxi. cap. iv. ; see Bingham, Book xv. chap. iv. sect, vii.]
INFALLIBILITY. [CHAP. XVI.
Yea, that there was no such tradition of the
Pope's or the Church of Rome's Infallibility in ancient
times, is as manifest by the oppositions betwixt the
Eastern and Western Churches, which could not con
sist with such tradition or belief of it,
And for the Church of England, had she owned
such tradition, her ancient Bishops would not have
contended with and rejected the Pope's messenger,
St Austin, and his propositions together.
Neither can any considering man imagine that
the tradition of the Pope's Infallibility is catholic, or
generally received and believed in the Church of
Rome at this day 1 . It is well known many of their
eminent men renounce it, and indeed the Pope him
self doth not believe it, or he does not believe that all
his doctors believe it : for if he does believe both,
why does he not make use of his talent, and put an
end to all the scandalous 2 broils and ruptures occa
sioned by the doctrinal differences and disputes among
the several factions of his Church, and have peace
within his own borders ? But this admits no answer.
It is said by the Romanist that universal traditions
are recorded in the Fathers of every succeeding age ;
and it is reasonably spoken. It behoves him as to
1 [Bossuet's ' Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani ' is a suffi
cient proof of this assertion. Vid. Lib. vn. capp. 21 28. For
numerous facts establishing the same position, see Mr Palmer's
'Treatise on the Church,' Part vn. chap. v. sect, i.]
2 [When Fullwood wrote, the Janscnistic controversy was raging
throughout the whole Roman communion. A minute account of
it is given by Mr Palmer, as above, Part i. chap. xi. Appendix i.
The Thomists were in like manner denouncing the Jesuits as
heretical. See Pascal, Les Provinciales, pp. 47, 53. ed. Paris.
1844.]
CHAI-. XVI.] INFALLIBILITY. 199
the present point to shew us in some good authors, in
every age since the Apostles, this tradition for Infal
libility ; then indeed he hath done something which
ought to be done. But till that be done we must
adhere that there is no such ground of the Pope's
authority over us as his Infallibility, proved by Scrip
ture or tradition.
This proof I think was never yet so much as un
dertaken, and may be expected (Hoc opus est.) It is
observed by Dr Stillingfleet 1 , that there is but one
eminent place in antiquity produced on their side in
the behalf of traditions, and that is out of St Basil, 'de
Spiritu Sancto ad Amphilochium.' But the book, with
just reason, is suspected 2 . Three of the traditions
mentioned in the place 3 are, the consecration of the
person to be baptized, the standing at the prayers
until Pentecost, and above all, the trine immersion in
baptism. The two first of these are not acknow
ledged by the present Church of Rome ; and the last,
by the very Council of Trent 4 , is pronounced not to
be of apostolical tradition.
Here is not one word touching any tradition for
the Infallibility of the Church, but indeed much rea
son against it : for either the present Church at that
1 [Vindication of Archbp. Laud, Vol. i. p. 386.]
2 [Respecting its genuineness, see Stillingfleet, as above ; and
Cave, Hist. Literar. sub Basil.]
3 [De Spiritu Sancto, c. xxvii. Opp. Tom. n. p. 351, c ; ed.
Paris. 1637.]
4 [Catechism, ad Parochos, de Baptismo, pp. 158, 159. ed.
Lovan. 1567 : ' Utrum vero unica, an trina ablutio fiat, nihil referre
existimandum est.' On the history of the practice, Bee Bingham,
Book xi. chap. xi. s. 6, 7, 8.]
200 INFALLIBILITY. [CHAI-. XVI.
time was actually deceived, and took that to be apos
tolical which was not so, or the present Church in the
Council of Trent took that not to be apostolical
which indeed was so, and was actually deceived in her
judgment and determination to the contrary. For
those words of that author, " unwritten traditions
have equal force to stir up piety with the written
word," put the dilemma beyond exception, as those
known words of the true l Basil, that " it is a manifest
falling from the faith, and an argument of arrogancy,
either to reject any point of those things which are
written, or to bring in any of those things which are
not written," make it justly suspicious that the book
extolling unwritten traditions was none of his.
Bellarmine's 2 three arguments, (1) the Fathers say
the sentence of general Councils admits of no appeal,
(2) such as submit not to them are heretics, (3) such
sentence is Divine, prove their authority, but not
their Infallibility ; and ' the force of such sentence
with the Fathers was ever taken from Scripture, or
reason, or miracles, or approbation of the whole
Church,' as Occham and S. Clara 3 after St Augustine
affirm. Therefore the Fathers generally allow us
liberty of examination, and derogate faith from all
men beside the Apostles.
1 [De Vera ac Pia Fide ; Opp. Tom. n. p. 386. c. : (pavepn
fwraHTis irKTTfats KOI inrfpr)<pavias Karr/yopia, rj aQtrtiv TI rS>v ytypap,-
H(va>i>, T) firfia-dyeiv ra>v ^r] yeypa/j.pfV(ov, K. r. X.]
2 [De Concil. Lib. n. c. 3 ; Disputat. Tom. n. p. 256 ; ed.
Colon. 1628. His arguments are considered at length in Pool's
' Nullity of the Romish Faith,' pp. 70, et seqq.]
3 System. Fidei, c. xxvi. $ 2. [where the author cites Occham
;md St Augustine at length.]
CHAPTER XVII.
THIRD ARGUMENT FOR INFALLIBILITY, FROM
REASON THREE REASONS ANSWERED
POINT ARGUED RETORTED.
IT is confessed, that though Scripture and tradition
prove it not, yet if there be indeed any sound
reason (which is a kind of Divine law) for the Pope's
Infallibility, that will go a great way. But it doubt
less ought to be very clear and strong reason, that is
able to carry it in so great a point, without either
Scripture or tradition. Let us hearken.
Perhaps we have tradition offering its service to Reason I.
reason in another form, and the argument may stand
thus : tradition is infallible, but the Pope in the
Church of Borne is the keeper of tradition ; therefore
thereby the Pope is infallible.
This argument indeed hath countenance from Answers.
antiquity : for Irenaeus ' adviseth his adversaries who
pretended tradition to go to Borne, and there they
might know what was true and apostolical tradition,
for there it was preserved.
But how could that Father assure us that Borne
would always be a faithful preserver of true apos
tolical tradition?
What security could he give to after ages against
innovations and additions to tradition itself in the
Church of Borne ?
1 [See above, p. 99.]
202 INFALLIBILITY. [CHAP. XVII.
Remember what hath been said, that tradition
can be thought infallible only in the substantials of
religion ; and consequently cannot protect either
itself or the Church from additional errors in other
things.
Besides, in the substantials of Religion the pro-
testant Churches have the benefit of tradition as well
as the Church of Rome ; and if that carry Infallibility
with it, our Church is infallible as well as the Church
of Rome ; and consequently thereby hath a right to
govern itself.
Reason II. g u ^ the great reason always gloried in is from
the wisdom and prudence of our blessed Saviour, who
had he not intended to afford the assistance of Infal
libility to the succeeding pastors of his Church, to
lead them when assembled in a general Council, he
had built his Church upon the sand ; as T. C. argues
with his Grace of Canterbury l .
Answer. Admit the necessity of this assistance to the pas
tors of the Church, what is this to prove the govern
ment of the Church in the Pope, because of his
infallibility ?
But if our Saviour should not have assured us
that he will thus assist his Church in all ages, (as you
cannot shew), how do you know he hath intended it ?
And how unchristian is your reason, to impeach your
Saviour with the inference of folly, and (as at other
times) with ignorance and imposture, if he hath not ?
Take heed ; hath not our Saviour built his Church
upon the foundation 2 of the Prophets and Apostles?
1 [Labyrinth. Cantuar. p. 104, $ 7.]
2 [Eph. ii. 20; Rev. xxi. 14.
CHAP. XVII.] INFALLIBILITY. 203
And is this sand in the Roman sense ? Is not Christ
himself the chief 1 corner-stone? Is He sand too?
Doth not he that keepeth His sayings build upon a
rock, as firm as the decrees of a general Council ?
Where hath our Saviour given us the least inti
mation that inherent Infallibility is the only rock to
secure the Church from error? Is there not sufficient
ground to rely on the doctrine of Christ, had there
never been a general Council ? What, was the Church
built upon the sand only before the Council of Nice ?
Why did it not then fall in the storms of persecution ?
Did not the Apostles commit the doctrine of
Christ to writing ? Is not tradition the great mean
of delivering the Scriptures, and all things needful to
salvation, by your own arguments ? May not the
latter be done by nurses and tutors, &c., without a
general Council ? And if there be lesser differences
in the Church, is the foundation subverted presently ?
And may not those lesser differences among Chris
tians be healed with argument, or at least quieted ;
and the peace of the Church preserved by the decrees
of Councils, without infallibility ? How unreasonable
is it to deny it !
"We grant," saith Doctor Stillingfleets, "Infalli
bility in the foundation of faith ; we declare the
owning of that Infallibility is that which makes men
Christians, (the body of whom we call a Church) ; we
further grant that Christ hath left in that Church suf
ficient means for the preservation of it in truth and
unity :" but ' we cannot discern, either from Scripture,
1 [Eph. ii. 20.]
2 p. 251); [Vindication, Vol. i. p 412: now ed.]
204 INFALLIBILITY. [CHAP. XVII.
reason, or antiquity, that such Infallibility is necessary
for the Church's preservation, by the Councils of suc
ceeding pastors ; much less a living and standing
infallible judge, as the Head of the Church.'
Reason But they say, ' the infinite dissensions and divisions
amongst those that deny it make this necessary.'
Answer. How is it in the Roman Church 1 ? Are there no
divisions there ? Or is the sole remedy ineffectual ?
Yea, are there no differences there about Infallibility 2
itself, the manner and subject of it ? Are not many
of yourselves ashamed and weary of it? Do not
some of you deny it, and set up tradition instead of
it ? Was not the Apostle 3 to blame to say, ' there
must be heresies or divisions among you,' and not to
tell them there must be an infallible judge among
you, and no heresies ? But now men are wiser, and
of another mind.
To conclude, whether we regard the truth or
unity of the Church, both reason and sense assures us
that this Infallibility signifies nothing : for, as to truth,
it is impossible men should give up their faith and
conscience, and inward apprehension of things, to the
sentence of any one man, or all the men in the world,
against their own reason ; and for unity, there is no
colour or shadow of pretence against it, but that the
authority of ecclesiastical government can preserve it,
as well with as without Infallibility.
1 [See Leslie's ' Case stated:' Works, Vol. in. pp. 18 et seqq.]
2 [This was the great subject of debate between the Ultramon-
tanists and the Gallicans during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. See Mr Palmer's ' Treatise on the Church,' Part vn.
chap. v. sect. 1.]
3 [1 Cor. xi. 19.]
CHAP. XVII.] INFALLIBILITY. 205
But if there be any sense in the argument, me-
thinks it is better thus : the Head and Governor of
the Christian Church must of necessity be infallible ;
but the Pope is not infallible, either by Scripture,
tradition, or reason ; therefore the Pope is not the
Head and Governor of the Christian Church.
CHAPTER XVIII.
OF THE POPE'S UNIVERSAL PASTORSHIP ITS
RIGHT, DIVINE OR HUMAN THIS CIVIL,
OR ECCLESIASTICAL ALL EXAMINED
CONSTANTINE KING JOHN-
JUSTINIAN PHOCAS, &c.
WE have found some flaws in the pretended title
of the Pope, as our Converter, Patriarch, Pos
sessor, and as the subject of Infallibility. His last
and greatest argument is his Universal Pastorship;
and indeed, if it be proved that he is the Pastor of
the whole Church of Christ on earth, he is ours also ;
and we cannot withdraw our obedience from him,
without the guilt of that which is charged upon us,
viz. schism, (if his commands be justifiable) : but if the
proof of this fail also, we are acquitted.
This right of the Pope's Universal Pastorship is
Divine or human (if at all) : both are pretended, and
are to be examined.
The Bishop of Chalcedon 1 is very indifferent and
reasonable as to the original : if the right be granted,
it is not de fide to believe whether it come from God
or no.
If the Pope be Universal Pastor jure humano only
his title is either from civil or from ecclesiastical
power ; and, lest we should err fundamentally, we shall
consider the pretences from both.
1 [' Survey of the Lord of Derry his Treatise of Schism.'
chap. v. sect. 3.]
CHAP. XVIII.] UNIVERSAL PASTOK. 207
If it be said that the civil power hath conferred
this honour upon the Pope, may it not be questioned
whether the civil powers of the world extend so far.
as either to dispose of the government of the Church,
or to subject all the Churches under one Pastor ?
However, de facto, when was this done ? When
did the Kings of England, in conjunction with the
rulers of the whole world, make such a grant to the
Pope?
I think the world hath been ashamed of the Donation
'Donation of Constantine' long agon; yet, that no Sne n * tan ~
shadow may remain unscattered, we shall briefly take
an account of it.
They say, ' Constantine the third day after he
was baptized left all the West part of the empire to
Pope Sylvester, and went himself to dwell at Con
stantinople ; and gave the whole imperial and civil
dominion of Rome, and all the Western kingdoms, to
the Pope and his successors for ever.'
A large boon indeed. This looks as if it was
intended that the Pope should be an Emperor, but
who makes him Universal Pastor? And who ever
since hath bequeathed the Eastern world to him,
either as Pastor or Emperor? For, it should seem,
that part Constantine then kept for himself.
But Mr Harding l throws off all these little cavils,
and with sufficient evidence out of Matthseus Hiero-
monachus, a Greek author, shews the very words of
the decree which carry it for the Pope, as well in
ecclesiastical as civil advantages. They are these 2 :
1 [Bp. Jewel's Defence of the Apology, p. 5S<) : e<l. 1570.]
2 [Ibid.]
208 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XVIII.
" We decree, and give in charge to all lords, and to
the senate of our Empire, that the Bishop of Rome,
and successor of Saint Peter, chief of the Apostles,
have authority and power in all the world, greater
than that of the Empire, that he have more honour
than the Emperor, and that he be head of the four
patriarchal seats, and that matters of faith be by him
determined." This is the charter whereby some
think the ' Pope hath power (saith John of Paris l ) as
Lord of the whole world to set up and pull down
Kings.'
It is confessed this grant is not pleaded lately
with any confidence. Indeed Bishop Jewel 2 did check
it early, when he shewed Harding the wisest and best
among the Papists have openly disproved it : such as
Platina, Cusanus, Patavinus, Laurentius Valla, Anto
ninus Florentinus, and a great many more :( .
Cardinal Cusanus hath these words : " Carefully
weighing this grant of Constantine, even in the very
penning thereof I find manifest arguments of forgery
and falsehood 4 ."
It is not found in the Register of Gratian, (that
is, in the allowed original text), though it be indeed
in the Palea of some books ; yet that Palea is not
read in the schools : and of it Pope Pius II. himself
i [Tractatus de Regia Potest. et Papali, c. xxn ; apud Goldast.
de Monarch. Tom. n. ; and in Bp. Jewel, p. 590.] 2 [Ibid.]
3 [Ibid. The Treatise of Laurentius Valla gave the death-blow
to this forgery. The title is ' De ementita Constantini Donatione
Declamatio.' It is printed in the ' Fasciculus Rerum,' etc., pp. 132
et seqq. ed. 1690.]
* De Catholica Concordantia, Lib. m. c, 2. [in the 'Fasciculus
Rerum,' p. 158.]
Cir,\i>. XVIII. J UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 209
said, Dicta Palcx -(.'onstantinus' falsa est, and inveighs
against the Canonists that dispute An valuerit id, quod
nunquam fuit ; and those that speak most favourably
of it confess that it is as true that, at the same time,
the voice of angels was heard in the air, saying, Hodie
venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam 1 .
Much more to the discountenance of this vain
story you have in Bishop Jewel's ' Defence,' which to
my observation was never since answered : to him
therefore I refer my reader.
But alas ! if Constantine had made such a grant,
Pope Pius 2 tells us it was a question among the very
Canonists an valuerit ; and the whole world besides
must judge the grant void in itself, especially after
Constantine's time.
Had Satan's grant been good to our Saviour, if He
had fallen down and worshipped him ? No more had
Constantine's (pardon the comparison) ; for in other
things he shewed great and worthy zeal for the nou
rishing grandeur of the Church of Christ, though by
this he had (as was said) given nothing but poison to
it ; for the empire of the world, and the universal
Pastorship of the Church, was not Constantine's to
give to the Pope and his successors for ever.
But it is urged nearer home, that King John deli- King John,
vered up his crown to the Pope, and received it again
as his gift.
It is true 3 ; but this act of present fear could not
1 [See these and other similar particulars in Bp. Jewel's De
fence, pp. 590, 591 ; also pp. 453, 454.]
2 [i.e. ^Eneas Sylvius, Pius II., as above.]
3 [Mat. Paris, A.D. 1212, 1213, pp. 232, et soqq. ed. 1639.]
14
210 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAV. XVIII.
be construed a grant of right to the Pope : if King
John gave away any thing, it was neither the power
of making laws for England, nor the exercise of any
jurisdiction in England that he had not before ; for
he only acknowledged (unworthily) the Pope's power,
but pretended not to give him such power to confer
the crown for ever ; much less to make him supreme
disposer of our English Church.
But if our constitution be considered, how incon
siderable an argument is this ! Our Kings cannot
give away the power of the Crown during their own
times without an Act of Parliament ; the King and
Parliament together cannot dispose of any thing in
herent to the Crown of England without a power of
resumption, or to the prejudice of succeeding Kings :
besides no King of England ever did (not King John
himself), either with or without his Parliament, by any
solemn public act, transfer the government of this
Church to the Bishop of Rome, or so much as recog
nize it to be in him, before Henry VIII. ; and what
John did was protested against by the three states
then in Parliament 1 .
And although Queen Mary since made a higher
acknowledgment of his Holiness than ever we read
was done here before ; yet it is evident she gave him
rather the compliment of the title of that uncertain
word ' Supreme Head ' than any real power, (as we
observed 2 before) ; and yet her new act to that pur
pose was endured to remain in force but a very short
time, about four or five years.
1 Harpsfield, Hist. Eccl. Angl. Ssec. xiv. c. 5.
2 [See above, p. 123.]
CHAP. XVIII.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 21 1
But although neither Constantine for the whole Justinian.
world, nor King John for England, did or could devise
the supremacy to the Pope, it is confessed the Em
peror Justinian endeavoured somewhat that looked
like it.
Justinian was a great friend of the Roman Bishop :
he saith 1 , Properamus Jwnorem et auctoritatem crescere
sedis vestrce, ; ' we labour to subject and unite all the
Eastern priests to the See of your Holiness 2 .'
But this is a plain demonstration that the See of
Rome did not extend to the East near six hundred
years after Christ; otherwise that would have been
no addition of honour or authority to it, neither
would Justinian have endeavoured what was done
before ; as it doth not appear that he afterwards
effected it.
Therefore the title that he then gave the Pope 3 ,
' the Chief and Head of all the Churches,' must carry
a qualified sense, and was only a title of honour befit
ting the Bishop of the chief and most eminent Church,
as the Roman Church then was, (and indeed Justinian
was a courtier, and styles the Bishop of Constantin
ople 4 universal Patriarch too); or at most can only
signify that his intentions were to raise the Pope to
the chief power over the whole Church ; which (as
was said before) he had not yet obtained.
1 [In Codice, Lib. i., de Summa Trinitate, p. 21, col. 2 ; ed.
Antverp. 1575.]
2 [" Ideoque omnes saccrdotes universi orientalis tractus et
subjicere et unire sedi vestrse sanctitatis properavimus." Ibid.]
3 [. . . "ut non etiam vestrse innotescat sanctitati, quse caput
est omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum." Ibid.]
4 [Justin. Cod. Lib. i. Tit, ii. c. 24. See Bingham, Antiq.
Book n. c. xvii. $ 21.]
142
212 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XVIII.
This is all that can be inferred, if these Epistles
betwixt the Emperor and the Pope be not forged ;
as learned Papists 1 suspect, because in the eldest and
allowed books they are not to be found.
However, if Justinian did design any thing in
favour of the Pope, it was only the subjecting of the
clergy to him as an ecclesiastical ruler ; and yet that
no further than might well enough consist with the
supremacy of the empire, in causes ecclesiastical as
well as civil, which memento spoils all the argument.
For we find the same Justinian 2 under this impe
rial style, ' We command the most holy Archbishops
and Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, and Hierusalem.'
We find him making laws 3 upon Monks, Priests,
Bishops, and all kind of Churchmen, to enforce them
to their duty.
We find him putting forth his power and autho
rity for the sanction of the Canons of Councils, and
making them to have the force of laws 4 .
We find him punishing the Clergy and the Popes
themselves ; yea it is well known and confessed by
1 [This is stated on the authority of Bp. Jewel, (Defence of
the Apology, p. 754), who refers to Gregory Haloander (or Hoff
mann, an eminent lawyer) : sec also Comber's ' Roman Forgeries',
Part n. p. 251, Lond. 1689.]
2 [Novel. Constit. cxxm. ; p. Ill, col. 2; ed. Antvcrp. 1575:
" Jubemus igitur, ut beatiss. quidem archiepiscopi et patriarchal,
hoc est, senioris Romse, Constantinopolis, Alexandria?, Theopolis
ot Ilierosolymarum," etc.]
3 [See a summary of his ecclesiastical laws in Flcury, liv. xxxii.
$50.]
4 [Codex, Lib. I., de Summa Trinitato, passim ; and more par
ticularly Novel. Constit. cxxxi.]
CHAP. XVIII. ] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 213
Romanists that he deprived two Popes, Sylverius 1 and
Vigilius 2 . Indeed Mr Harding 3 saith, that was done
by Theodora the Empress, but it is otherwise recorded
in their own Pontifical ; the Emperor demanded of
Bclisarius, what he had done with the Romans, and
how he had deposed Sylverius, and placed Vigilius in
his stead ? Upon his answer, both the Emperor and
Empress gave him thanks 4 . Now it is a rule in law,
Ratihabitio retrotrahitur, et mandato comparatur.
Zabarella declares 5 it to be law, that 'the Pope in
any notorious crime may be accused before the Em
peror ; and the Emperor may require of the Pope an
account of his faith.' And ' the Emperor ought to
proceed,' saith John of Paris, ' against the Pope upon
the request of the Cardinals 6 .'
And it was the judgment of the same Justinian
himself, that there is no kind of thing but it may be
thoroughly examined by the Emperor ; for he hath
a principality from God over all men, the Clergy as
well as Laity 7 .
But his erecting of Justiniana Prima, and giving
1 [rintimi, in Vit. Sylvcr. p. 144; cd. 1G64.]
2 [This pope was summoned by the emperor to Constantin
ople, and though well received in the first instance, was after
wards treated with the greatest ignominy. Platina in Vit.
Vigil, i. pp. 146, 147. Niccphorus gives a similar account, Eccl.
Hist. Lib. xvii. c. 26; Tom. n. p. 774.]
3 [In Jewel's Defence, p. 755.]
1 [Sec the Life of Vigilius in Labbe, Concil. Tom. v. 306, D.J
5 [Dc Schismatc et Concil. quoted by Bp. Jewel, ubi supra,
p 756.1
(1 [De Potestatc Regia et Papali, cap. xiv. ; apud Goldast. de
Monarchia, Tom. n.]
7 (Soo tin 1 imperial edict read brfovn the Council of Constan
tinople. ,\ D ,-,".:!. iii l,,ibb<>. Concil. Tom. v. 41. ot su>qq .]
214 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XVIII.
the Bishop 1 locum Apostolicce sedis, to which all the
provinces should make their last appeal ; whereby (as
Nicephorus 2 affirms) ' the Emperor made it a free
city, a head to itself, with full power independent
from all others' and as it is in the imperial consti
tutions 3 , the Primate thereof should have all power of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the supreme priesthood, su
preme honour and dignity this is such an instance,
both of Justinian's judgment and power, contrary to
the Pope's pretensions of supremacy (as granted or
acknowledged by the Emperor Justinian), that all
other arguments of it are ex abundanti ; and there is
no great need of subjoining that other great and like
instance of his restoring Carthage to its primacy
after the Vandals were driven out 4 , and annexing
two new provinces, that were not so before, to its
jurisdiction, without the proviso of submitting itself
to Rome ; though before Carthage had ever refused
to do it.
Phocas the Emperor and Pope Boniface no doubt
understood one another 5 , and were well enough agreed
upon the point: but we shall never yield that these
1 [Authent. Collat. ix. Novel, cxxxi. Tit, xiv. c. 3 ; cf. Authent.
Collat. n. Novel. XL]
2 [The reference is probably to Nicephorus Callist. Eccl. Hist.
Lib. xvi. c. 37 ; Tom. n. p. 716, A. A minute account of Justi-
niana Prima is given by Dr Hammond, 'Answer to Schism Dis
armed,' chap. iv. sect, vii.]
3 [As above, note 1.]
* [Novel, cxxxi. c. 4; and see Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. xxxn.
$ 48, 49.]
8 [In allusion to the title 'universal bishop' which Phocas the
usurper gave Boniface III. The circumstances arc narrated by
Paulus Diaconus, do Gestis Longobard. Lib. iv. c. 11.]
. XVIII. J UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 215
two did legally represent the Church and the world,
or that the grant of the one, and the greedy accept
ance on the other part, could bind all Christians and
all mankind in subjection to his Holiness's chair for
ever.
Valentinian said 1 , 'All antiquity hath given the
principality of priesthood to the Bishop of Home : '
but no antiquity ever gave him a principality of
power ; no doubt he, as well as the other Emperors,
kept the political supremacy in his own hands.
Charles the Great 2 might compliment Adrian, and
call him universal Pope, and say he gave St Wilihade
a bishopric at his command : but he kept the power
of convocating Synods 3 every year, and sat in them
as a judge 4 himself; auditor et arbiter adsedi. He
made ecclesiastical decrees in his own name ; to
whom this very Pope Adrian acquitted all claim in
the election of succeeding Popes for ever 5 . A great
deal more in answer to both these you have in Arch
bishop Bramhall 6 , and King James's ' Defence 7 .'
1 [i. o. Valentinian III. in a letter to Theodosius the younger ;
in Labbe, Concil. Tom. iv. 52, E.]
2 [This is one of Richard Smith's objections, in his ' Survey'
of Bramhall's Treatise of Schism, pp. 106, 107.]
3 [Carol. Magni et Ludov. Pii Capit. Lib. v. c. 2.]
4 [Vid. Carol. Mag. Epist. apud Goldast. Constit. Imperial.
Part i. p. 3.]
5 [Apud Goldast. ubi supra, p. 1.]
6 pp. 235, 236; [Vol. n. pp. 231, 232, new ed.]
7 p. 50; [Works, pp. 408, 409; ed. 1616.]
CHAPTER XIX.
THE POPE'S PRETENDED ECCLESIASTICAL RIGHT
NOT BY GENERAL COUNCILS FIRST EIGHT
TO WHICH SWORN JUSTINIAN'S SANC
TIONCANONS APOSTOLICAL ALLOWED
BY COUNCILS OF NICE AND EPHESUS.
HOUGH it seem below his Holiness'* present
grandeur to ground his right upon the civil
power, especially when that fails him ; yet mcthinks
the jus ecclesiasticum is not at all unbecoming his pre
tences, who is sworn to govern the Church according
to the Canons, as they say the Pope is 1 .
If it be pleaded that the Canons of the Fathers do
invest the Pope with plenary power over all Churches,
and if it could be proved too, yet one thing more
remains to be proved, to subject the Church of Eng
land to that his power, viz., that the Canon Law is
binding and of force in England as such, or without
our own consent or allowance. And it is impossible
this should be proved while our Kings are supreme,
and the constitution of the kingdom stands as it hath
always stood.
However, we decline not the examination of the
plea, viz. that the Pope's supremacy over the whole
Church is granted by the Canons of Councils, vix.
General. But when this is said, it is but reasonable
to demand which, or in what Canons.
1 (">Scc al>o\r, p fil '
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 217
It is said, the Pope- receives his oilicc with an
oath to observe the Canons of the first eight general
Councils : in which of these is the grant to be found ?
Sure so great a conveyance should be very legible and
intelligible.
We find it very plain that in some of those Coun
cils. and those the most ancient, this power is ex
pressly denied him, and that upon such reason as is
eternal ; and might justly and effectually prevent any
such grant or usurpation of such power for ever, if
future grants were to be just and reasonable, or
future Popes were to be governed by right or equity,
by the Canons of the Fathers, or fidelity to the
Church, to God, or their own solemn oaths at their
inaugurations.
But we are prepared for the examination of the
Councils in this matter by a very strong presumption ;
that seeing Justinian made the Canons to have the
force of laws, and he had ever shewed himself so
careful to maintain the rights of the empire in all
causes, as well as over all persons ecclesiastical, and
even Popes themselves, it is not credible that he
would suffer any thing in those Canons to pass into
the body of the laws, that should be agreeable to the
pretended donation of Constantinc. or to the pre
judice of the Emperor's said supremacy ; and conse
quently not much in favour of the supremacy claimed
by later Popes.
Justinian's sanction extended to the four great Justinian v
t , ., x T . Sanction ot
I'ouneils. <>( Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus I., and first foui
Chalcedon, in these words' Satn-i>ii .
Constil < \\.\i p 120, col. 2: cl. Antvorp. lf.7-).]
218 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XIX.
sancti ecclesiastici canones, qui a sanctis quatuor con-
ciliis (hoc est Nicceno, . . . Constantinopolitano, . . . Ephesino
primo,...et Chalcedonensi,...) expositi et confirmati sunt,
vicem legum obtineant. Prcedictorum etenim sanctorum
conciliorum decreta perinde ut sacras Scripturas suscipi-
mus, et canones ut leges custodirnus."
Apostles' Perhaps it may be doubted why he did not con-
mentioned, firm those Canons which were then well known by the
Reason, title of the Canons of the Apostles ; whether J because
their authority was suspected, especially many of
them ; or because they were not made by a truly
general Council ; or because they were confirmed in
and with the Council of Nice and Ephesus, &c. ; or
lastly, whether because the first fifty had before a
greater sanction from the general reception of the
whole Church, or the greater authority of the sacred
names of the authors, the Apostles or apostolical
men, I venture not to declare my opinion.
But truly there seems something considerable for
the latter, for that the Council of Nice do not pretend
to confirm the Apostles' Canons, but their own, by the
quotation of them; taking authority from them, as
laws founded in the Church before, to build their own
and all future Canons and decrees of Councils upon,
in such matters as were found there determined.
A great instance of the probability of this con
jecture we have, full to our present purpose, given us
by Binius 2 : "The Nicene and Ephesine Synods fol-
1 Vid. Bin. Concil. Tom. i. p. 17, A. [On the character and
authority of these Canons, see Bp. Beveridgc's ' Codex Canonum
Eccles. Primitive Vindicatus'.]
2 In Concil. Niecen. can. vi. : Tom. I. p. 20.
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 219
lowed these Canons of the Apostles, appointing that
every Bishop acknowledge suum primum their Chief Canons
,. Apostolical
and Metropolitan, and do nothing without their own allowed by
Diocese; but rather, the Bishop of Alexandria, ac- Nice and
cording to the Canons (understand, saith Binius, those
thirty-five and thirty-six of the Apostles), must govern
the Churches of Egypt; the Bishop of the East, the
Eastern Churches. The Ephesine Synod also saith, ' it
is besides the Canons of the Apostles that the Bishop
of Antioch should ordain in the provinces of Cy
prus,' &c."
Hence it is plain, that according to the Apostles'
Canons, interpreted and allowed as authentic (so far
at least) by the Synods of Nice and Ephesus, the
Metropolitan was Primate or chief over the Churches
within his provinces, and that he as such (exclusive
of all foreign superior power) was to govern and
ordain within his own provinces; not consonant to,
but directly against, the pretended supremacy of the
Bishop of Rome.
But let us consult the Canons to which Binius
refers, and the matter is plainer.
CANONS APOSTOLICAL.
is nothing in the Canons of the Apostles
to our purpose, but what we find in Canons 35
and 36 ; or in the reddition (as Binius gives it),
Canons 33 and 34.
Tows etrujKOTTOvs, /c.r.A.. 1 'Let the Bishops of
1 [Tous eVrto-KOTTovs CKCUTTOV edvovs flSevai xpf) TOV fit avrois
npurov, KOI rjyf'to-Qai avrbv a>s xc(pa\r/v, KOI firfSev TI npdrrfiv ntpirrw
220 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. |<'IIAI. XIX.
every nation know,' (or they ought to know), ' who
among them is accounted (or is) chief; and esteem
him fc>s KctpaXriv, ut caput ; and do nothing difficult,
aut magni momenti, prceter ejus conscientiam vel senten-
tiam.' But what if the matter were too hard for the
Primate, is no direction given to go to the infallible
chair at Rome ? Here was indeed a proper place for
i ( . but not a word of that.
In the thirty-sixth (alias thirty-fourth), it is added 1 ,
1 that a Bishop should not dare to ordain any beyond
the bounds of his own jurisdiction ;' but neither of
these Canons concern the Pope, unless they signify
that the Pope is not Head of all Churches, and hath
not power in any place but within the Diocese of
Rome ; or that Binius was not faithful in leaving out
the word 60aX>; (or Head), in his Note upon these
Canons.
$ II.
NICENE COUNCIL FIRST GENERAL BELLARMINE'S
EVASION.
WE find nothing in the true Canons of the Nicenc
Synod that looks our way, except Canons
and 7. They arc thus 2 : T ap^ula, K.T.\. "Let
nvev rfjs tKfivov yi/oi/ij/y, K. r. \. P;itrcs Apostol. cd. Cotelor. Tom. I.
p. 442 ; cd. Anvtorp. 1098. The silence of the early church re
specting the Papal Supremacy is very forcibly stated by Barrow,
Suppos. v. ; Works, Vol. I. pp. GIG, et seqq. ed. 1716.]
1 [Al. can. xxvm. 'E7ri<TKonai> /x) ro\p.ai> eo> r>i> tavrov opa>t>
\fipoTovlas noieladai ds TUS ju; vnoK(iij.tvas tuVai TroAeiy, <c. r. X.]
2 [T apxaia (0rj K/jort/TO), TU tv \lyv7TTif KJII Aiftvi/ aal Tlfv-
TajroXfi, ware TW 'A\fav8p(tus tn lc nonov TH'IVTO>V rnvrtav f\ flv T *l l>
'iT.Mur (7Tfi8r) KCI'I rw cV it) 'PfafJtfl (TTKfKOTKf TOVTO rrrVT}0f's ("Tir.
CUM'. XIX.J UNIVERSAL PASTOR.
ancient customs be kept through Egypt, Libya, and t
Pentapolis ; so as the Bishop of Alexandria may have
power over all these, because also (eTretra /cai) the
like custom is for the Bishop of the city of Rome
(TOUTO (TvvrjOes effnv) ; as likewise at Antioch and
other provinces let the privileges be kept in their
own Churches." But suppose differences arise, is no
liberty or remedy provided by going to Home ? No
more than, if differences arise in the Roman Church,
they may have remedy from any other : a remedy is
indeed provided by the Canon 1 , ' If two or three do
contradict, Kparelrct) r\ TWV TrXcioixDv \|/^0os (not go to
Rome, but ' let the major vote carry it.')
In the seventh Canon, custom and tradition both i ;
are the grounds upon which the Council confirmed
the like privilege of the Church of Hierusalem 2 : " Be
cause custom and ancient tradition obtain that the
Bishop of ^Elia should be honoured, let him have the
consequence of honour," with a salvo * for the proper
dignity of the Metropolis ;' but not a word of Rome.
Note that in Canon vi. the power of the Alex
andrian Bishop is grounded upon ancient custom
' antiqua consuctudo servetur,' and not upon the con
cession of the Roman Bishop, as Bellarmine would
ofjioiuts fie KOL Kara rrjv A.vrio\finv Kill tv rais aXXats tirapxiais, TO.
npfcr(3elu <r(afar6ai rals fKK\r)criais, K. T. X. Concil. cd. Labi). Tom.
II. 32.]
1 ['Ear ftev TOI rrj Kowrj iravTav \lri]<pa> ev\6ycf> 01)077, Ka ' Kara Kavova
(KK\emacrTiKov, 8vo fj rpels 81 oiKfiav (piXovfiKinv avrCkfyoxri, Kpa-
Tfirdi r; TU>V 7rAeioi/a>z> ^fjfpos. Ibid.]
2 ['ETTeiSi) (rvvtjdeia KfKparrjKf not Trapadocris dp^at'a, wrrre TOV
tv > A^Xla eVicncoTroi' Ti/j.ao-0ai, e'^erw rfjv (\KO\ovdiav rfjs Tifjirjs, rij
fj.i]Tpmro\fi <ra>np.fvov TOV otxtiav d^iuifjtaTos. Can. VII. Ibid.]
222 UNIVERSAL PASTOR, [CHAP. XIX.
force it ; and that the like manner or custom of
Rome is but another example of the same thing, as
Antioch was and the rest of the provinces : but
this ungrammatical and illogical evasion was put off
before 1 .
III.
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE SECOND GENERAL
A. D. 381.
T
'HE next Council, admired by Justinian 2 as one
of the Gospels, is that famous Council of Con
stantinople adorned with one hundred and fifty Fa
thers. Hath this made any better provision for the
Canon i. Pope's supremacy ? Certainly no : for the very first
Canon 3 chargeth us not to despise the faith of the
three hundred and eighteen Fathers in the Synod of
Nice, which ought to be held firm and inviolate.
Canon n. The second Canon 4 forbids the confusion of Dio
ceses, and therefore enjoins (/caret T<W xavovas} the
rules of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers to be kept :
" the Bishop of Alexandria must govern them in
Egypt only ;" and so the rest, as are there mentioned
more particularly than in the Nicene Canons.
Canon m. In the third is reinforced the Canon of the former
Council against ordinations by Bishops out of their
own jurisdictions ; and adds this reason, that casts no
countenance upon any foreign jurisdiction 5 : "It is
1 [See above, p. 37.] 2 [See above, p. 218.]
3 Concil. ed. Bin. Tom. i. p. 660; [ed. Labb. Tom. n. 946, E.]
4 [Concil. ed. Labb. Tom. n. 947, A: Tw ph 'A.\{gav8pdas e-n-l-
(TKOTfOV TCI l> 'AiyUTTTCO fJLOVOV oLcCVOftflv, K. T. X.J
5 [ . . . ev8rj\ov coy TO. Kaff fKaa-Trfv tifap^iav ff rfjs tirapjftas (rvv-
ofios dwiKrjcrfi, Kara ra ei> NiKai'a (apiap.fi>a. This is ill Labbe a por
tion of Canon n. ubi supra, B.]
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 223
manifest that the proper provincial Synod ought to
administer and govern all things within their peculiar
provinces, according as was denned at Nicaea."
This third Canon honours the Bishop of Constan
tinople next after the Bishop of Rome, as Binius
renders ret irpearfieia T*/? Tifj.rj$ /nerd TOV TYJS 'PwjULifS
GirivKOTrov. But Binius is very angry that such a Canon
is found there, and urgeth many reasons ] against it ;
and therefore we shall conclude that, as none of the
rest, so neither doth this Canon, confer the universal
government of the Church upon the Bishop of Rome.
IV.
COUNCIL OF EPHESUS THIRD GENERAL A. D. 431.
TI^HE third General Council, whose Canons Jus-
1- tinian 2 passed into Laws, is that of Ephesus; and
this so far abhors from the grant, that it is a plain
and zealous contradicter of the Pope's pretensions.
In Act the seventh, it is agreed 3 against the
invasion of the Bishop of Antioch, that the Cyprian
Prelates shall hold their rights untouched and unvio-
lated, according to the Canons of the holy Fathers
(before mentioned) and the ancient custom, ordaining
their own Bishops. 'And let the same be observed in
other dioceses, and in all provinces, that no Bishop
occupy another province (or subject it by force), which
formerly and from the beginning was not under his
power or his predecessors' : or if he have done so
1 Concil. Tom. i. p. 672. [Labbe, Tom. n. 947, c.]
2 [Above, p. 218.]
3 [See the decree at length in Labbe, Tom. HI. 802.1
224 UNIVERSAL PASTOU. [CiiAr. XIX.
let him restore it, that the Canons of the Fathers
be not transgressed, nor the pride of worldly power
creep into the Church, ... nor Christian liberty be lost.
Therefore it hath pleased the holy Synod, that every
province enjoy its rights and customs unviolated,
which it had from the beginning;' <? ap^ avwOei',
twice repeated, whereby we are to learn a very great
rule, that the bounds of primacies were settled very
early, before this Council or any other general Coun
cil before this, even at the beginning ; and that those
bounds ought to be observed to the end, according to
the Canons of the Fathers and ancient custom ; and
consequently, that such as are invaders of others'
rights are bound to make restitution. Now it is evi
dent we were a free province in England in the begin
ning, and when St Augustine came from Home to
invade our liberties, it is evident this Council gave
the Pope no power or privilege to invade us ; yea,
that what power the Pope got over us in after times,
was a manifest violation of the rights we had from
the beginning, as also of the Canons of the ancient
Fathers, in the three mentioned sacred and general
Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, all
grounded upon the ancienter Canons called the Apos
tles'.
Lastly, such usurpers were always under the obliga
tion of the Canon to restore and quit their incroach-
ments ; and consequently the Britannic Churches were
always free to vindicate and reassume their rights and
liberties, as they worthily did in Henry VIII.
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 225
COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON FOURTH GENERAL
A.D. 451 S. W.'s GLOSS.
rpHERE is little hope that this Council should
J- afford the Pope any advantage, seeing it begins
with ' the confirmation of all the Canons made by the Canon i .
Fathers in every Synod before that time 1 ;' and con
sequently of those that we have found in prejudice to
his pretensions among the rest.
The Ninth Canon enjoins, ' upon differences be- Canon ix.
twixt clerks, that the cause be heard before the
proper Bishop ; betwixt a Bishop and a clerk, before
the provincial Synod ; betwixt a Bishop or clerk and
the Metropolitan, before TOV e^ap^ov T^ Sioucijaews, or
the See of the royal city of Constantinople 2 .' To the
same effect we read in Canon 17, 'If any one be injured Canon
XVII.
by his Bishop or Metropolitan, Trapd Tip 7rap-^w rrjs
cioiKyuecos, rj ry K.a)i'o~TavTivovTro\a)S Opovw SiKa^ecfOco 3 ,'
K. T. \.
But where is any provision made for remedy at
Rome ? Indeed that could not consist with the sense
of this Synod, who would not endure the supremacy,
or so much as the superiority of Rome above Con
stantinople.
This is evident in Canon 28 : ' The Fathers gave Canon
privilege to the See of old Rome, 8ia TO flaaiXeveiv *
TroXtv eKeivriv, (saith the Canon), and for the same
[Tous irapa rfov ayia>v narepcov <aff fKaarrjv crvvobov a^pi TOV vvv
evras Kavovas Kparelv f8iKaicocrafjLv Can. I. ; apud Labb, Concil.,
Tom. iv. 755.]
2 [Ibid. 759. D.] s [Ibid. 763. c.]
15
226 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XIX.
reason an hundred and fifty Bishops gave ra 'iaa
, equal privileges to the seat of new Rome ;
npivavres, rightly judging that that city, that
hath the empire and the senate, should enjoy equal
privileges with old royal Rome, KOI ev roTs- eKKXrjataa-
0)9 eneivrjv, /j.eya\vvea9ai 7rpa.yn.aai) cevTepav P.GT
s. w.'s Now to what purpose doth S. W. (to Dr Hammond)
Gloss.
trifle on the Canon, and tell us that these privileges
were only 'honorary pomps 2 ;' when the Canon adds 'in
ecclesiastical matters,' and names one, ' the ordination
of Bishops and Metropolitans within themselves, as
before was declared by the divine Canons 3 .' We con
clude that this bar against the Pope's universal Pas
torship will never be removed.
These are the first four general Councils, honoured
by Justinian as the four Gospels, to which he gave
the title and force of Laws 4 . By which all Popes are
bound 5 , by solemn oath, to rule the Church ; yet we
find not one word in any of them for the Pope's pre
tended universal Pastorship : yea in every one of
them we have found so much and so directly against
it, that as they give him no power to govern the
whole Church ; so by swearing to observe them in
such government as the Canons deny him, he swears
to a contradiction as well as to the ruin of his own
pretensions.
1 [Can. i. apud Labb. Concil. Tom. iv. 770, B.]
2 [See Hammond's 'Answer to Schism Disarmed,' chap. iv.
sect. iv. ; Works, Vol. n. pp. 89, 90.]
3 [Labbe, ubi supra, 770, c.] 4 [See above, p. 218.]
5 [See above, p. 61.]
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 227
We conclude from the premises, that now, seeing Argument.
all future Councils seem to build upon the Nicene
Canons (as that upon the Apostles'), if the Canons of
Nice do indeed limit the power of the Bishop of
Rome, or suppose it to have limits, if his cause be
tried by the Councils, it must needs be desperate.
Now if those Canons suppose bounds to belong to
every Patriarchate, they suppose the like to Rome :
but it is plain, that the bounds are given by those
Canons to the Bishop of Alexandria, and the reason
is, because this is also customary to the Bishop of
Rome. Now it is not reasonable to say, Alexandria
must have limits because Rome hath, if Rome have
no limits.
Pope Nicolas himself so understood it, whatever
S. W. did : " The Nicene Synod," saith he, " conferred
no increase on Rome, but rather took from Rome an
example particularly what to give to the Church of
Alexandria 1 ."
Whence Dr Hammond strongly concludes, that
' if at the making of the Nicene Canons Rome had
bounds, it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon,
that those bounds must be at all times observed, in
contradiction to the universal Pastorship of that See 2 .'
The matter is ended, if we compare the other
Latin version of the Nicene Canon with the Canon as
before noted :
1 ['Nicsena synodus Romance ecclesiae nullum contulit incre-
mentum, scd potius ex ejus forma quod Alcxandrinse ecclesise tri-
bueret, particulariter sumpsit exemplum.' Nichol. i. Epist. viii.]
2 ['Answer to Schism Disarmed,' chap. iv. sect. vi. ; Works,
Vol. n. p. 95.]
15 2
228 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XIX.
" Antiqui moris est ut urbis Romse Episcopus
habeat principatum, ut suburbicana loca, et omnem
provinciam sua sollicitudine gubernet ; quae vero apud
Egyptum sunt, Alexandrinae Episcopus omnem habeat
sollicitudinem : similiter autem et circa Antiochiam
et in caeteris provinciis privilegia propria serventur
metropolitanis Ecclesiis."
Whence it is evident, that the Bishop of Rome
then had a distinct Patriarchate as the rest had ; and
that whatever primacy might be allowed him be
yond his province, it could not have any real power
over the other provinces of Alexandria, &c. And it is
against the plain sense of the rule, that the antiquus
mos should signify the custom of the Bishop of Rome's
permission of government to the other Patriarchs, as
Bellarmine feigneth 1 . This edition we have in the
' Bibliotkeca Juris Canonici' of Christopher Justel and
Voel, Tom. i. p. 284.
VI.
SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE THE FIFTH
GENERAL 165 BISHOPS A.D. 553.
BARONIUS and Binius 2 both affirm that this was
a general Council, and so approved by all Popes,
predecessors and successors of St Gregory, and St
Gregory himself.
The cause was, Pope Agapetus had condemned
Anthimus 3 ; the matter was afterwards ventilated in
1 [See above, p. 37.]
2 Baron, ad an. 553, ccxxiv. Bin. Not. in Concil. Const. [Tom.
iv. p. 374.]
3 [For the particulars, see Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. xxxn. sect.
52, 54.]
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 229
the Council. Now where was the Pope's supremacy ?
We shall see immediately.
After Agapetus succeeded Vigilius : when the
Council condemned the Tria Capitula 1 , Pope Vigilius
would defend them ; but how did he carry it, in faith
or fact ? Did the Council submit to his judgment or
authority? No such thing, but quite contrary; the
Council condemned the Tria Capitula, and ended.
The Pope for not consenting, but opposing the Coun
cil, is banished by the Emperor Justinian. Then
Vigilius submits and confirms the sentence of the
Council, and so is released from banishment. This is
enough, out of both Baronius 2 and Binius 3 .
The sum is, "we condemn (say they 4 , as is ex
pressed in the very text) all that have defended the
Tria Capitula :" but Vigilius (say the historians) de
fended the Tria Capitula ; therefore was Vigilius the
Pope condemned by this Council: such authority
they gave him.
VII.
THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, OF 289 BISHOPS
SIXTH GENERAL A. D. 680 SECOND NICENE
COUNCIL SEVENTH GENERAL s_ of 375
BISHOPS A. D. 787.
ELLARMINE acknowledgeth these to be the
sixth and seventh general Councils ; and both
B
1 [These were certain writings of Theodoras of Mopsuestia, Ibas
ofEdessa, and Theodoret, which supported the errors of Nestorius.]
2 Ad an. 553, ccxxin. 3 [ubi supra.]
* [Vid. Concil. ed. Labb. Tom. v. 568, c.]
5 [That this Council cannot properly be called oecumenical, is
proved by Mr Palmer, ' Treatise on the Church,' Part iv. chap. x.
sect, iv.]
230 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XIX.
these he acknowledgeth did condemn Pope Honorius
for an heretic 1 .
For Bellarmine to urge that these Councils were
deceived in their judgment touching his opinion, is
not to the point ; we are not disputing now, whether
a Pope may be a heretic in a private or public capa
city, in which the Councils now condemned him,
though he seems to be a bold man, to prefer his own
bare conjecture a thousand years after, about a matter
of fact, before the judgment of two general Councils,
consisting of 664 Bishops, when the cause was fresh,
witnesses living, and all circumstances visibly before
their eyes. But our question is, whether these Coun
cils did either give to the Pope as such, or acknow
ledge in him, an uncontrollable authority over the
whole Church ? The answer is short ; they took that
power to themselves, and condemned the Pope for
heresy as they also 2 did Sergius of Constantinople.
$ VIII.
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE EIGHTH GENERAL
383 BISHOPS A.D. 869.
HOW did this eighth general Council recognize the
Pope's supremacy? Binius himself tells us 3 , 'this
Council condemned a custom of the Sabbath-fast in
Lent, and the practice of it in the Church of Rome :'
1 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. iv. c. xi.J
2 [See Floury, Hist. Eccl. liv. XL. s. 22.]
3 [Tom. v. p. 338, F; ed. Paris. 1636. Yet tho Canon here
mentioned is not one of the Council recognized in the Roman
Church as the eighth General, but of the Council ' in Trullo,' held
at Constantinople, A.D. 691. The original is as follows: 'ETmSi)
v rfi 'Patfjiaicav 7rn\(i tv Tfls nytais rf)<;
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR, 231
and the word is, 'We will that the Canon be observed
in the Church of Home ; inconcusse vires habeat.'
It is boldly determined against the mother Church ;
Home concerned, reproved, commanded ! Where is
the authority of the Bishop of Rome ?
Rome would be even with this Council, and there
fore (saith Surius 1 ) ' she receives not this 55th Canon.'
But why must this Canon only be rejected ? Oh !
it is not to be endured : that is all the reason we can
have. But was not this a general Council ? Is it not
one of the eight sworn to by every Pope ? Is not this
Canon of the same authority (as of the Council) with
all the rest? Or is it tolerable to say, it is not
authentic, because the Pope doth not receive it, and
he doth not receive it because it is against himself?
' Qui matrem Ecclesiarum omnium Romanam Ecclesiam
reprehendit, non recipitur,' saith Surius 2 .
These are the first eight general Councils, allowed
by the Roman Church at this day. What little excep
tions they would defend their supremacy with, against
all that hath appeared, are answered in the ' Post
script' at the latter end of the book, whither I refer
my readers for fuller satisfaction.
In the mean time we cannot but conclude, Conclu
sion from
(1) That the Fathers, during eight hundred and all.
seventy years after Christ, knew no such thing as the
nftmias rots rniirrjs <ra/3/3acri vrjcrrfiifiv Trapa rrjv 7rapa8ode'i<rav fKK\rj-
ma<TTiKi]v a.KO\ov0iav, e8of TTJ ayiq <rvi>68(j> wore Kparflv Km eVi 177
'PctyiOMM* fKK\r)<riq aTrapaaaXfVTcas rov Kavova. K. r. X. Can. LV.]
1 [Quoted by Binius, Concil. Tom. v. p. 421, col. 2, E.]
a [Ibi.l.]
232 UNIVERSAL PASTOR, [CHAP. XIX.
Pope's Supremacy by Divine right or any right at all,
seeing they opposed it.
(2) That they did not believe the Infallibility of
the Church of Rome.
(3) That they had no tradition of either that
Supremacy or Infallibility.
(4) That it is vain to plead antiquity in the Fa
thers, or Councils, or Primitive Church, for either.
(5) That the judgment of those eight general
Councils was at least the judgment and faith of the
Church, not only during their own times, but till the
contrary should be decreed by a following Council of
as great authority ; and how long that was after, I
leave to themselves to answer.
(6) That the Canons of those first eight general
Councils, being the sense both of the ancient and the
professed faith of the present Church of Rome, the
Pope's authority stands condemned by the Catholic
Church at this day, by the ancient Church and the
present Church of Rome herself, as she holds com
munion (at least in profession) with the ancient.
(7) That this was the faith of the Catholic Church,
in opposition to the pretended Supremacy of the Pope,
long after the first eight general Councils, is evident,
by the plain sense of it, in the said point, declared by
several Councils in the ages following, as appears
both in the Greek and Latin Church. A word of
both.
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 233
$ IX.
THE LATIN CHURCH COUNCILS OF CONSTANCE AND
BASLE.
fTIHE Council of Constance in Germany, long after, Constance.
-L of almost a thousand Fathers, A.D. 1414 1418,
say 1 , 'they were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and a
general Council, representing the whole Church, and
having immediate power from Christ, whereunto obe
dience is due from all persons, both for faith and
reformation, whether in the head or members.' This
was expressly confirmed by Pope Martin V. to be held
inviolable in matters of faith 2 . Their great reason
was, ' the Pope is not Head of the Church by Divine
ordinance ;' as the Council of Chalcedon said 3 , a
thousand years before.
Now where was necessary union and subjection to
the Pope ? Where was his supremacy jure Divino ?
Where was tradition, infallibility, or the faith of the
present Church, for the Pope's authority ?
The Council of Basle, A.D. 1431, decreed 4 as the Basle.
Council of Constance ; Pope Eugenius 5 would dissolve
them ; the Council commands the contrary, and sus-
1 [Vid. Concil. ed. Labb. Tom. xn. 19, et alib. The fullest
history of this Council is that of Von der Hardt, Magnum CEcum.
Constant. Concil. ed. Francfort, 1700.]
2 [The bull of Martin V. confirming the acts of the Council was
issued between the forty-second and forty- third sessions.]
3 [See above, p. 225.]
* [ApudLabb. Concil. Tom. xn. 477, 478, 619.]
5 [See the particulars in Fleury, Hist. Eccles. A.I>. 1431. In
1437 Eugenius attempted by a bull to translate the Council to
Ferrara ; this attempt was, however, ineffectual, and the sessions
continued at Basle till 1443.]
234 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XIX.
pend the Pope ; concluding, that whoever shall ques
tion their power therein is an heretic. The Pope
pronounceth them schismatics ; in the end, the Pope
did yield, and not dissolve the Council.
This was the judgment of the Latin Church above
1400 years after Christ, and indeed to this day, of the
true Church of France 1 ; and in Henry the Eighth's
time, of England, as Gardiner said 2 , 'the Pope is
not a Head by dominion, but order ; his authority is
none with us ; we ought not to have to do with Rome,'
the common sense of all in England.
Bellarmine saith 3 , that ' the Pope's subjection to
general Councils is inconsistent with the Supreme
Pastorship.' ' It is repugnant to the Primacy of Saint
Peter,' saith Gregory de Valentia 4 ; yet nothing is
more evident than that general Councils did exercise
authority over Popes, deposing them, and disposing of
their Sees, as the Council of Constance did three 5
together ; and always made Canons in opposition to
their pretensions.
Yea, it is certain that a very great number 6 , if not
the greater, of the Roman Church itself were ever of
1 [i. c. of the Gallican school as represented by Bossuet.]
2 [See his Treatise, ' de Vera Obedientia,' in Brown's Append,
to the 'Fasciculus Rerum,' p. 812.]
3 De Conciliorum Auctor. Lib. 11. c. 17.
4 Analys. Fidei Cathol. Lib. vm. c. 14.
a [viz. John XXIII., Gregory XII., Benedict XIII.]
6 [e. g. It was determined in the Articles of 1682, by the general
assembly of the Gallican Church, that the decrees of the synod of
Constance, concerning the superiority of a general Council to the
Pope, shall remain in full force. See Mr Palmer's ' Treatise on
the Church/ Vol. n. p. 207. 3rd cd. A summary of the ' Gallican
Liberties,' is given by Arclibp. Bramhall, Works, Vol. i. pp. 225.
et scqq.]
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR, 235
this faith, that general Councils are superior, have
authority over, give laws unto, and may justly censure,
the Bishop of Rome.
Pope Adrian VI. 1 , and very many other learned
Romanists, declared this to be their judgment, just
before or near upon the time that Henry VIII. was
declared supreme in England. So much for the Latin
Church.
* X.
THE GREEK CHURCH AFRICAN CANONS SYNOD OF
CARTHAGE OF ANTIOCH THE FAITH OF
THE GREEK CHURCH SINCE.
THAT the Greek Church understood the first
general Councils directly contrary to the Pope's
Supremacy, is written with a sunbeam in several other
Councils : e. g.
I. By the ' Canons of the African Church.'
The 28th Canon 2 forbids 'all transmarine appeals,' (; a , 10 n
threatens such as make them with excommunication,
makes order 'that the last appeal be to the proper
Primate, or a general Council.' To the same effect is
the 125th Canon 3 ; and the Notes of Voel 4 upon these canon
Canons put it beyond question, that in the trans
marine appeals they meant those to Rome ; as it is
1 [Tho reference is most probably to his Qusest. dc Confir-
mationc, quoted by Hammond, Works, Vol. n. p. 197.]
2 [Vid. Cod. Canon. Eccl. African., can. xxvm. apud Labb.
Concil. Tom. n. 1063, B.]
3 [Can. cxxv. ; ibid, 1131, A.]
[Biblioth. Juris Canon.] Tom. I. p. 425.
XXVIII.
cxxv.
236 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAT. XIX.
expressed, ' the Church of Rome and the priests of
the Roman Church.'
II. Council of Antioch.
This Council is more plain: it saith 1 , 'If any
Bishop in any crime be judged by all the Bishops in
the province, he shall be judged in no wise by any
other ; the sentence given by the provincial Bishops
shall remain firm.' Thus the Pope is excluded, even
in the case of Bishops out of his own province ; con
trary to the great pretence of Bellarmine.
III. The Synods of Carthage.
These Synods 2 confirmed the twenty Canons of
Nice, and the Canons of the African Councils : and
Canon then in particular they decreed, ab universis Episcopis
VIII.
dictum est, si criminosus est, non admittatur.
Again, if any one, whether Bishop or Presbyter,
that is driven from the Church, be received into corn-
Canon ix. munion (by another), even he that receives him is
held guilty of the like crime, refugientes sui Episcopi
reyulare judicium.
Canon xii. Again, 'if a Bishop be guilty, when there is no
Synod, let him be judged by twelve Bishops, secundum
Canon xx. statuta veterum Conciliorum.' The statutes of the an
cients knew no reserve for the Pope in that case.
Canon Further, 'no clergyman might go beyond the seas'
XXIII.
1 [Concil. Antioch. A. D. 341, can. xv.; apud Labb. Tom. n.
585. This council was assembled by the Eusebians, or Semi-
Arians.J
2 [The decrees and canons are in the Codex Can. Eccl. African.,
apud Labb. Concil., Tom. n. 1049, et seqq.]
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 237
(viz. to Rome), without the advice of his Metropolitan,
and taking his ' formatam vel commendationem.'
The 28th Canon is positive, ' that Priests and Canon
XXVI 1 1
Deacons shall not appeal, ad transmarina judicia' (viz.
to Rome), ' but to the Primates of their own provinces :'
and they add, ' Sicut et de episcopis scepe constitution
est;' and if any shall do so, none in Africa shall receive
them. And in Canon 125 it is renewed; adding, 'the Canon
CXX V.
African Councils/ to which appeals are allowed as well
as to the Primates ; but still Rome is barred.
The Sense of the Greek Church since.
Now when did that Church subject itself to Rome
in any case ? Our adversaries acknowledge the early
contests betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches,
in the point of Supremacy 1 ; where then is the consent
of Fathers, or universality of time and place, they use
to boast of?
Bellarmine confesseth 2 , that from 381 to the time
of the Council of Florence, viz. 1058 years, the Greek
Church disclaimed subjection to the Pope and Church
of Rome ; and he confesseth, they did so in several
general Councils.
And he doth but pretend that this Church sub
mitted itself to Rome in the Council of Florence, A. D.
1439 ; for the contrary is evident in that they would
not yield that the Pope should choose them a Patri
arch, as Surius himself observes 3 .
1 [On the final interruption of communion in 1054, see Mr
Palmer's 'Treatise on the Church,' Part i. chap. ix. s. 2.]
2 [Disputat, Tom. i. p. 129, G; in Prsefat. de Romano Pontif.]
3 [Concil.] Tom. iv. p. 489. [A defence of the Greek Church
touching the council of Florence may be seen in Bp. Stillingfleet's
Vind. Vol. i. pp. 3770.]
238 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XIX.
So true it is, that Maldonate 1 and Prateolus 2
acknowledge and record, the Greek Church always
disliked the supreme dignity of the Pope, and would
never obey his decrees.
To conclude, the law of the Greeks hath always
been against the Pope's Supremacy ; the fundamental
law was a prohibition of appeals to Rome ; therefore
that Church acknowledged no absolute subjection to
Rome. (2) They excommunicate all African priests
appealing to Rome ; therefore they held no necessity
of union with Rome. (3) They excommunicate all
such as should but think it lawful to appeal to Rome ;
therefore they had no faith of the necessity of either
union or subjection to the Church of Rome.
Enough, to the Pope's prejudice, from the Coun
cils of all sorts. We must, in the foot of the account,
mind our adversaries that we have found no colour
for the pretence of a grant, from any one general
Council, of the Pope's authority ; much less over the
Church of England : which their plea from the Canons
expressly requires at their hand.
For my Lord Bramhall 3 , with invincible reason,
affirms, ' We were once a free Patriarchate, inde
pendent on any other, and according to the Council
of Ephesus, every province should enjoy its ancient
rights, pure and inviolate ; and that no Bishop should
occupy any province which did not belong to him
from the beginning ; and if no true general Council
1 Maldonatus, Comment, in Matth. x. 2; [Tom. i. p. 298; ed.
Mogunt. 1840.]
2 Prateolus, de Vitis, Scctis etc. Hsereticorum, [pp. 198, 199 ;
od. Colon. 1569.]
3 [Just Vindication, Part i. Disc. ii. : Works, Vol. r. p. 158.J
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR.
hath ever since subjected Britain under the Roman
Court, then (saith he) the case is clear, that Rome
can pretend no right over Britain, without their own
consent, nor any further, nor for any longer time,
than they are pleased to oblige themselves.'
We must expect, therefore, some better evidence
of such grant to the Pope, and such obligation upon
England, by the Canons of some truly general Coun
cil ; and we may still expect it, notwithstanding the
Canons of Sardica : which yet shall be considered,
for it is their faint colour of antiquity.
XL
THE SARDICAN CANONS NO GRANT FROM THE MAT
TER, MANNER, OR AUTHORITY NO APPENDIX TO
COUNCIL OF NICE ZOSIMUS HIS FORGERY NEVER
RATIFIED, NOR THOUGHT UNIVERSAL AFTER CON
TRADICTED BY COUNCILS.
THE Pope at length usurped the title, and pre
tended the power of Supreme, and the Canons
in time obtained the name of the Pope's decrees ; but
the question is, what general Council gave him either ?
Doctor Stillingfleet observes 1 , that ' nothing is
more apparent, than that when Popes began to perk
up, they pleaded nothing but some Canons of the
Church for what they did, then their best and only
plea, when nothing of Divine right was heard of; as
Julius to the Oriental Bishops; Zosimus to the African,
and so others :' but still what Canons ?
* [Vindication, Vol. n. p. 207.]
240 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [Cn A r. XIX.
The Romanist 1 , against Archbishop Laud, argues
thus : ' It was ever held lawful to appeal to Rome
from all parts ; therefore the Pope must be supreme
Judge. This (saith he) is evidenced by the Sardican
Canons, accounted anciently an Appendix to the
Council of Nice.' This he calls an unanswerable
argument.
Answer. But it is more than answered, if we consider
either the matter, or the manner, or the authority, of
these Canons,
i- I. The matter said to be granted appears in the
For the
matter of words themselves. It is said 2 , ' If it seem good to
these Ca
nons, you, let us honour the memory of Saint Peter, and by
those Bishops that are judges, let it be written to
Julius Bishop of Rome, and by the next Bishops of
the province, if need be, let the judgment be re
voked.'
But (1) here is no grant so much as of appeal,
only of a review. (2) It is not pretended to be
according to any former Canons. (3) The judgment
is to be revoked by a Council of Bishops chosen for
the purpose. (4) The request seems to terminate in
the person of Julius, and not to extend to his succes
sors ; for else why should it be said to Julius Bishop
of Rome, and not to the Bishop of Rome absolutely ?
2. II. The manner of the motion spoils all, ' if it
please you.' Did the Universal Pastorship then lie at
the feet, or depend upon the pleasure, of this Coun
cil ? Did no Canons evidence the Pope's power, and
1 [i. e. T. C. in the Labyrinthus Cantuar., p. 193.]
2 [Concil. Sardic. can. in., apud Labb. Tom. 629, A. The
canon is quoted at length, p. f>3, note 1.]
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 241
right till then, eleven years after the death of Con-
stantine ? Besides how unworthily was it said, ' let us
honour the memory of Saint Peter ;' did the Pope's
succession of Saint Peter depend upon their pleasure
too?
III. But lastly, the main exception is against the 3.
authority of this Council ; or, at least, of this Canon,
as Cusanus questions l .
(1) It is certain these Canons are no Appendix to NoAppen-
the Council of Nice, wherein their strength is pre- Nicene
tended to consist ; though Zosimus fraudulently sent
them 2 under that name to the African Bishops
which can never be excused ; for they are now
known to have been made twenty-two years after that
Council.
Upon that pretence of Zosimus, indeed, a tem
porary order was made in the Council of Africk, that
' appeals might be made to the Pope, till the true
Canons of Nice were produced 3 ;' which afterwards
being done, the argument was spoiled, and that Pope,
if possible, was put to .shame. Hereupon that excel
lent Epistle was written to Pope Coslestine, of which
you had account before 4 .
(2) This Council was never ratified by the recep- Not re-
tion of the Catholic Church ; for the Canons of it ceived>
were not known by the African Bishops when Zosimus
1 De Catholica Concorclantia, Lib. n. c. 15.
2 [See above, p. 108 ; and for a fuller exposure of the forgery,
compare Bp Carleton's ' Jurisdiction/ pp. 69 76. ed. 1610, and
Comber's ' Roman Forgeries,' Part n. pp. 35, et seqq.]
3 [Epist. adBonif. apud Labb. Concil. Tom. n. 1140, 1141.]
4 [pp. 109, 110.]
16
242 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XIX.
sent them, and St Augustine discredits them, saying 1 ,
they were made by a Synod of Arians.
( 3 ) li is evident that this Council was never
accounted truly universal, though Constans and Con-
stantius intended 2 it should be so : for but seventy of
the Eastern Bishops appeared to three hundred of the
Western, and those Eastern Bishops soon withdrew
from the other, and decreed things directly contrary
to them : so that Balsamon and Zonaras, as well as
the elder Greeks, say it can only bind the Western
Churches ; and indeed it was a long time before the
Canons of it were received in the Western Church,
which is the supposed reason why Zosimus sent them
as the Nicene, and not as the Sardican, Canons 3 .
(4) After the Eastern Bishops were departed,
there were not Patriarchs enough to make a general
Council, according to Bellarmine's own rule 4 . Conse
quently, Venerable Bede leaves it out of the number ;
the Eastern Churches do not reckon it among their
seven, nor the Western among their eight, first gene
ral Councils. The English Church, in their Synod at
Hedtfeld, A.D. 680, left it out of their number, and
embrace only the Council of Nice, the first of Con
stantinople, the first of Ephesus, the first and second
of Chalcedon, to this day 5 .
1 [Ep. CLXIII. ;see Bp Stillingfleet's 'Vindication,' Vol. 11. p. 209.]
2 [It was assembled by them in order to establish union between
the eastern and western Churches ; see Socrates, Hist. Eccl. Lib.
ii. c. 20.]
3 [See Stillingfleet's 'Vindication,' Vol. n. pp. 209, 210.]
4 De Concil., Lib. i. c. 17.
5 [Archbp. Bramhall, Works, Vol. n. p. 533, whore the authori
ties may be seen at length.]
CHAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 243
Therefore Archbishop Bramhall had reason to say
that ' this Council was never incorporated into the
English laws, and consequently hath no force in Eng
land ; especially, being urged in a matter contrary to
the famous memorial of Clarendon, a fundamental law
of this land. All appeals in England must proceed
regularly, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and
from him to the King to give order for redress 1 .'
But to wipe away all colour of argument, whatever
authority these Canons may be thought to have in
other matters, it is certain they have none in this
matter of appeals ; for as to this point the undoubted
general Councils afterward decreed quite otherwise ;
reducing and limiting appeals ultimately to the Pri
mate of the province, or a Council, as hath been
made to appear 2 .
When I hear any thing of moment urged from
any other Council, as a grant of the pretended Su
premacy to the Pope, I shall consider what may be
answered : till then, I think there is an end of his
claim, jure humano, either by a civil or canonical
grant, by Emperors, or general Councils. So much
hath been said against, and so little to purpose, for
the Council of Trent, that I shall excuse myself and
my reader from any trouble about it 3 .
But I must conclude, that the Canons of the
Council of Trent were never acknowledged or re
ceived by the kingdom of England as the Council of
1 [Archbp. Bramhall, Works, Vol. n. p. 533.]
2 [See above, p. 225.]
3 [Bp. Stillingfleet considers the character of this synod in his
'Vindication,' Part n. chap, viii.]
162
244 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XIX.
Basle was, which confirmed the acts of the Council of
Constance ; which Council of Constance, without the
presence or concurrence of the Pope, did decree
themselves to be a lawful complete general Council
superior to the Pope, and that he was subject to their
censures ; and deposed three Popes at a time. The
words of the Council are remarkable : ' The Pope is
subject to a general Council, as well in matters of
faith as of manners, so as he may not only be cor
rected, but if he be incorrigible, be deposed 1 .'
To say this decree was not conciliarly made 2 , and
consequently not confirmed by Pope Martin V., signi
fies nothing, if that Martin were Pope ; because his
title to the Papacy depended merely upon the autho
rity of that decree. But indeed the word ' conciliari-
ter' was spoken by the Pope upon a particular occa
sion, after the Council was ended and the Fathers
were dismissed ; as appears in the history.
1 [See authorities above, ix., and Labbe, Concil., Tom. xn.
pp. 19, 23.]
2 [See Bramhall's 'Just Vindication,' Part. I. Disc. ii. ; Works,
Vol. i. pp. 250 252 : Replication to the Bp. of Chalcedon, Part I.
Disc. Hi. ; Works, Vol. n. pp. 250, et seqq.]
CHAPTER XX.
OF THE POPE'S TITLE BY DIVINE RIGHT THE
QUESTION, WHY NOT SOONER? IT IS
THE LAST REFUGE.
T'HE modern champions of the Church of Home
slight all that hath been said, and judge it beneath
their master and his cause to plead any thing but a
'Jus Divinum' for his pretended Supremacy; and
indeed will hardly endure and tolerate the question,
Whether the Pope be universal Monarch, or Bishop
of the whole Church as St Peter's successor, jure
Divino ?
But if this point be so very plain, may I have
leave to ask why it was not urged sooner ? Why
were lesser inconsistent pleas so long insisted on ?
Why do not many of their own great men discern it
to this day?
The truth is, if the managery of the combat all
along be seriously reflected on, this plea of Divine
right seems to be the last refuge, when they have
been driven by dint of argument out of all other
holds, as no longer to be defended. And yet give me
leave to observe, that this last ground of theirs seems
to me to be the weakest, and the least able to secure
them ; which looks like an argument of a sinking
cause.
However, they mightily labour to support it by
these two pillars, (1) That the government of the
whole Church is monarchical, (2) That the Pope is
246
UNIVERSAL PASTOR,
[CHAP. XX.
the Monarch ; and both these are jure Divino. But
these pillars also must be supported, and how that is
performed we shall examine.
Argument
i.
Answers.
SECTION I.
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF THE WHOLE
CHURCH BE MONARCHICAL BY DIVINE RIGHT?
BELLARMINE REASON SCRIPTURE.
BELLARMINE 1 hath flourished with this argu
ment through no less than eight whole chapters,
and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it
as far it would go, and no wonder if he have left
it thin.
What solidity is in it, we are to weigh both from
Reason and Scripture.
I. Not from Reason, in Three Arguments.
From reason they argue thus : God hath appointed
the best and most profitable government, (for He is
most wise and good) ; but monarchical government is
the best and most profitable.
(1) It is plainly answered that to know which is
the best government, the state of that which is to be
governed must be considered, the end of government
being the profit and good of the state governed ; so
that unless it appear that this kind of government be
the most convenient for the state of the Church,
nothing is concluded.
1 [De Romano Pontifice, Lib. i. c. i. ix.]
CIIAI>. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 247
(2) We believe that God hath the care of the
world, and not only of the Church ; therefore in His
wise and good Providence He ought to have settled
the world under the best and most profitable govern
ment, viz. under one universal Monarch.
(3) Bellarmine himself grants, that ' if particular
Churches should not be gathered, inter se, so as to
make one visible, political body, their own proper
rector would suffice for every one, and there should
be no need of one Monarch 1 .'
But all particular Churches are not one visible
political body, but as particular bodies are complete
in themselves, enjoying all parts of ordinary worship
and government singly ; neither is there any part of
worship or government proper to the (Ecumenical
Church, qua talis.
(4) The argument seems stronger the contrary
way : God is good and wise, and hath appointed the
best government for His own Church ; but He hath not
appointed that it should be monarchical : therefore
that kind of government seems not to be the best for
His Church. Christ might- foresee the great incon
veniences of His Church's being governed by one
ecclesiastical Monarch, when divided under the several
secular powers of the world, though the ambition of
men overlook it and consider it not.
Yet that the government of the Church appointed
by God, as best for it, is monarchical, is not believed
by all ' Catholics.' The Sorbonne Doctors doubt not
to affirm, that aristocratical government is the best
i [Ibid. c. viii.: Disputat. Tom. i. p. 136, A.]
248 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX.
of all, and most agreeable to the nature of the
Church 1 .
(6) But what if we yield the whole argument?
As the government of the Church is imperial, it is in
Christ, the universal Monarch over it ; but He being
in a far country, He governs the several parts of his
Church in distinct countries by visible ministerial
monarchs or primates, proper to each. The distinc
tion of imperial and ministerial power is given us in
this very case by our adversaries ; there is nothing
unreasonable, unpracticable, or contrary to the prac
tice of the world in the assertion. We grant that
monarchy is the best kind of government in a due
sphere ; the world is wide enough for many monarchs,
and the Church too. The argument concludes for
Primates over Provinces, not for an universal Monarch,
either over the world or the whole Church.
Argument < The Church cannot be propagated (as Bellarmine 2
argues) without a universal monarch, to send preach
ers into other provinces,' &c.
Answer. Who can doubt but that the governors of any
Church have as much power to send any of her mem
bers, and have as much power in pagan and infidel
countries, as the supposed universal Bishop ? And if
1 [This was the affirmation of Antonius do Dominis in his
Treatise ' de Republica Ecclesiastica ;' where he further quoted the
Doctors of the Sorbonne as holding the same view. In 1617, how
ever, they disclaimed all sympathy with him, declaring his propo
sition 'heretique et schismatique, en tant qu'elle insinue ouverte-
ment que le pape n'a point d'autorite de droit divin sur les
autres eglises.' See Du Pin, Hist. Eccl. du 17 me siecle, Tom. i.
pp. 447, et seqq. a Paris, 1714.]
2 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. i. <-. ix.: Tom. i. p. 138, B.]
CHAP. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 249
heretics can propagate their errors, why should not
the orthodox the truth without the Pope ?
' It is necessary (saith Bellarmine L ) that all the Argument
faithful should have one faith, which cannot be with
out one chief Judge.'
In necessaries they may, in other things they need A newer.
not ; as appears sufficiently among the Romanists
about this as well as other points ; neither could
Peter himself, with the help of the rest of the Apos
tles, in their time prevent heresies and schisms. These
things are too weak to bear up the great power and
universal Monarchy pretended, and indeed an im
peachment of the wisdom and goodness of Christ, if
He have not provided such a government for his
Church as they plead a necessity of, for the said
ends : the thing next to be inquired
II. Not from Scripture Prophecies, Promises, Meta
phors, or Example of High-priest.
They affirm that ' the Scriptures evince an uni
versal Monarchy over the Church :' but how is it
proved ?
The prophecies and promises and sundry meta- Argument
phors (of a house, kingdom, body, flock, &c.) prove
the Church to be one in itself; and consequently it
must have one supreme Governor 2 .
We are agreed, that the Church is but one, and Answer.
that it hath one supreme Governor ; and we are
1 [De Romano Pontif. Lib i. c. ix.: Tom. i. p. 138, c.]
2 [This argument is stated at length by Bollarmine, ibid. p. 138.
F<>r a fuller reply see Bp. Overall's 'Convocation Book,' pp. 202, et
'd. Oxf. 1844.]
250 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX.
agreed, that Christ hath the supreme government of
it, and that those Scriptures too signify that He is
such, if we consider the government to be imperial,
(as Hart 1 confesseth to Dr. Rainolds). And thus the
argument passeth without any harm ; but it still rests
to be proved that the ministerial governor is .but one,
or that the Scriptures intend so, or St Peter, or the
Pope, as his successor, is that one governor over the
whole Church.
It is true, as our Saviour saith, there is one flock
and one shepherd ; but it is as true which he saith in
the same place, ' I am that good shepherd ; ' but as
that one principal Pastor had many vicars, not Peter
only, but twelve Apostles, to gather and feed the
sheep, who were therefore sent to preach to all na
tions, and did, as it is said, divide the world into
twelve provinces respectively, so that one great
Monarch might have many viceroys, if we may so call
the future Bishops to govern the Church ; though in
faith but one, yet in site and place divided. It is no
unreasonable thing, that the King of Britain and Ire
land should govern Scotland and Ireland, which lie at
some distance from him, by his deputations, as before
was hinted.
Argument ' There was one High-priest over the Church of
the Jews, and by analogy it ought to be so in the
Christian Church.'
Answer. Many things were in that Church which ought not
to be in this.
1 [See ' The Sum of the Conference between John Rainold s
and John Hart,' p. 9. London, 1609.]
CHAF. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 251
They were one nation as well as one Church ; and
if every Christian nation have one High-priest, the
analogy holds well enough.
The making the nations of the world Christian
hath, as experience shews, rendered the government
of the Church by one person, that cannot reside in
all places, very inconvenient, if not impracticable.
Now if our Saviour foresaw this, and hath ordered
the government of the Christian Church otherwise
than Moses had that of the Jews, who shall say, What
hast thou done ?
It can never be proved that the High- priest over
the Jews was either called the Judge, or had such
power over that Church as the Pope pretends over
the Christian 1 .
Lastly, it is not doubted but Moses was faithful,
and Christ as faithful, in appointing a fit government
for these great and distinct states of the Church ; but
what kind of government Moses appointed is nothing
to the question, unless it appear that Christ hath
appointed the same. The proper question is, whether
Christ hath appointed that the Christian Church
should be governed by one universal Monarch ; let
us apply to that.
The great issue is, the instance of St Peter. It is Argument
in.
affirmed that our Lord committed the government of
the Christian Church to St Peter, and his successors,
the Popes of Rome, for ever.
A grant of so great consequence ought to be very
plain ; the whole world is concerned, and may expect
evidence very clear, (1) That Christ gave this universal
1 See Conference between Rainolds and Hart, pp. 202, 203.
252 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX.
Supremacy to St Peter ; and (2) to the Pope, as his
successor. If either fail, Roma ruit.
SECTION II.
OF ST PETER'S MONARCHY 'TU ES PETRUS'
FATHERS ABUSED.
w
are now come to the quick. The first great
question is, Whether Christ gave his Apostle
St Peter the government of his whole Church ? This
Scripture wou ^ be proved from Matthew xvi. 18, ' Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.'
The argument is, What Christ promised He gave ; but
in these words Christ promised to make Peter the
Supreme Head and Governor of his Church ; there
fore this power was given him.
Answer. If this argument conclude, by 'this rock' must be
meant St Peter ; and the words, ' I will build my
Church upon it,' must signify the committing the
supreme power of the Church to him.
For the first, it is at least a controversy among
the ancient Fathers ; and many of them do deny
that by this rock we are to understand any thing
but that confession which was evidently the occa
sion of this promise, and was made by Peter just
before, as St Cyril 1 , Hilary 2 , Chrysostom 3 , Am-
1 [S. Cyril. Alexand. de Sancta Trinitate, Dial. iv. ; Opp. Tom.
v. Part. I. p. 507, E; cd. Paris. 1638.]
2 [e.g. de Trinitate, Lib. n. ; Opp. p. 17, col. i. c; ed. Paris.
1631.]
3 [e.g. in Matth. Homil. MV. al. LV. ; Opp. Torn. vn. p. 548, A;
nd. Paris. 1727 ]
CHAP. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 253
brose 1 , and St Augustine 2 , whose lapsus humanus in
it is reproved by Stapleton 3 .
But I am willing to agree as far as we may, and
therefore shall not deny but something peculiar to
St Peter's person was here promised, (though I be
lieve it was a point of honour, not a supremacy of
power) : Avhat that was will appear by the thing pro
mised, ' I will build my Church,' that is, ' upon my
doctrine preached by thee.' ' I will build my Church ;'
thou shalt have the honour of being a prime and
principal author of the world's conversion ; or (as Dr
Rainolds 4 against Hart) Peter was in order with the
first who believed, and among those first he had a
mark of honour in that he was named ' Stone ' above his
brethren. Yet as he, so the rest are called founda
tions, and indeed so were in both these senses : for
the twelve were all prime converts, and converters of
others, and were foundations in their respective pro
vinces on which others were built ; but they were not
built one upon another, and they had no other founda
tion on which they themselves were built, but Christ
himself.
1 [e. g. in Epist. ad Ephes. cap. n. ; Opp. Tom. in. col. 498, E ;
ed. Paris. 1614.]
2 [St. Augustine held that the 'rock' might in one sense mean
St. Peter, and in another our Lord himself. In his 'Retracta
tions,' Lib. i. c. 21, he says " Harum autem duarum sententiarum,
quse sit probabilior eligat lector."]
3 De Princip Doctrin. Lib. vi. c. 3. [A synopsis of the various
interpretations of this text of Scripture is given in Mr. Palmer's
'Treatise on the Church,' Part vn. chap, i.]
4 [pp. 30, 31. The same view is taken of our Lord's declaration
by Bishop Pearson, On the Creed, Art. ix. p. 508; ed. Lond. 1842;
and by Bp. Horsley, Sermon on Matt. xvi. 18, 19.]
254 UNIVERSAL PASTOR [CHAP. XX.
We are willing to any thing that the sense of the
words will conveniently bear ; but that they should
signify power and government over the whole Church,
and the rest of the Apostles, we cannot understand :
for the Rock is supposed before the building upon it,
and the building before the government of the house ;
and the government of the Church cannot tolerably
be thought to be of the foundation or first building of
the Church, but for the preservation or augmentation
of it after its existence is supposed.
Perhaps there is ground to allow that Peter's
foundation was the first, as his name was first among
the Apostles ; and that this was the reason of that
primacy of order and dignity which some of the
ancients in their writings acknowledged in St Peter l ;
but certainly there is need of a plainer text to argue
this text to signify that supremacy of power over the
rest of the Apostles and the whole Church, which is so
hotly contended for by our Romish adversaries to be
given Saint Peter. However, after the resurrection of
Christ, ' all were made equal, both in honour and
power,' as Saint Cyprian 2 saith.
2nd B u t [i j s urged that the other part of the promise
Scripture.
is most clear, " To thee will I give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven," viz. ' the fulness of ecclesiastical
power,' as Hart s expressed it.
1 Paul had the same primacy over Barnabas, that Peter had
over the apostles. See St. Ambrose in Epist. ad Gal. c. u.: [Opp.
Tom. in. col. 471, G; ed. Paris. 1614.]
2 De Unitate Eccles. [ 3 : " Hoc erant utique et cseteri apos-
toli, quod fuit Petrus, par! consortio prtediti et honoris et potestatis;
sed exordium al> imitate profieiscitur. ut ecclesia Cliristi una mon-
strotur."] ;t [Conference-, p. 32.]
CHAP. XX.J UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 255
Our answer is, that Christ here promised no more Answer.
power to Peter than he performed to all the Apostles :
Peter's confession was made in the name of all, and
Christ's promise was made to Peter in the name of
all ; and nothing can be clearer, either in the text or
in fact.
The text is plain, both in itself and in the judg
ment of the Fathers, that Peter stood in the room of
the rest, both when he made the confession and
received the promise 1 .
And that it did equally concern the rest of the
Apostles is evident by the performance of it. A pro
mise is of something de futuro ; our Saviour saith to
Peter, ' I will give thee the keys,' but when did He do
it ? And how did He do it ? Certainly at the time
when He delivered those words recorded John xx.
21, 23, and after the manner there expressed, and by
that form of words. How are not those words spoken
by Christ equally to all the Apostles? "As my Father
sent me, so do I send you ; whose soever sins ye
remit," c. nothing plainer.
To say that Christ gave not the keys to all, but
only the power of remitting and retaining sins, seems
pitiful, unless some other proof be offered, that Christ
did actually perform this promise to St Peter apart,
1 Vid. S. Augustin. in Johan. cap. xix. Tractat. cxvin. ; [Opp.
Tom. in. Part n. col. 583, F; ed. Antverp. 1700]: S. Arnbros. En-
narat. in Ps. xxxvni.; [Opp. Tom, n. Col. 744, E; ed. Paris. 1614]:
Hieronym. adv. Jovinian. Lib. i. ; [Opp. Tom. iv. Part ii. Col.
168; ed. Paris. 1706]: Origen. Comment, in Matth. ; [Opp. Tom.
in. pp. 523, 524: ed. Paris. 1740]: Hilar. Pictav. de Trinitate, Lib.
vi. ; [Opp. col. 77. 78; od. Paris. 1631]. Cardinal de Cusa is plain
on this point also. Vid. de Cathol. Concordant ia. Lib. n c. 1.'!.
256 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX.
and give him the keys at some other time, in distinc
tion to the power given in the twentieth of John to
all together.
' Remitting and retaining sins/ is certainly the
power of the keys, and so called by the Council of
Trent 1 itself. And it is not the keeping, but the
power of the keys is the question ; and indeed Bellar-
mine 2 proves, that the whole power of the keys, and
not a part only, as Stapleton 3 supposed, was granted
to all the Apostles in the words John xx., to be the
general interpretation of the Fathers.
Stapleton 4 from Turrecremata distinguished be
twixt the apostolic and the episcopal Power ; and they
grant, that the apostolic power was equal in all the
Apostles, and received immediately from Christ, but
the episcopal power was given to St. Peter with the
keys, and immediately and by him to the rest.
This is a new shift ; else why is the title ' apos
tolical' given to the Pope, to his See, to all acts, &c.;
seeing the Pope, according to the fineness of this dis
tinction, doth not succeed Peter, as an Apostle, but
as a Bishop.
It is as strange as new ; seeing the power of the
keys must as well denote the episcopal power of the
rest of the Apostles as of Peter; and the power of
using them, by remitting, &c., was given, generally
and immediately, by Christ to them all alike.
1 Catechism, ad Parochos, [p. 257, ed. Lovan. 1567.]
2 In Prselect. Roman. Contvovers. iv. Qusest. in. de Summo
Pontifice.
3 [De Princip. Doctrin. Lib. vi. c. 1.]
4 [Ibid. capp. 1, 6, 7, 8.]
CHAP. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 257
This distinction of Turrecremata was (as Rainolds l
against Hart sheweth) spoiled, before Doctor Staple-
ton new vamped it, by two learned friars, Sixtus
Senensis and Franciscus a Victoria ; evidencing both
out of the Scriptures, that the Apostles received all
their power immediately of Christ ; and the Fathers,
that in the power of apostleship and order (so the
two powers were called), Paul was equal to Peter,
and the rest to them both.
Therefore, this distinction failing, another is in
vented, and a third kind of power is set up, viz. the
power of the kingdom ; and now from the threefold
power of Saint Peter, Apostolatus, Ordinis, Regni, it
is strongly affirmed 2 , (1) touching the Apostleship,
'Paul (as Jerome 3 saith) was not inferior to Peter ; for
he was chosen to preach the Gospel, not by Peter,
but by God, as Peter was' : (2) touching the power
given in the sacrament of Orders, Jerome 4 saith well
too, that ' all the Apostles received the keys equally,
and that they all, as Bishops, were equal in the degree
of Priesthood, and the spiritual power of that de
gree : ' thus the first distinction is gone. But, thirdly,
touching the power of kingdom, Saint Jerome 5 saith
best of all, that ' Peter was chosen among the twelve,
and made the head of all, that all occasion of schism
might be removed.'
These are fancies of the Schoolmen, but where are
1 [Conference, p. 81.]
2 [See Rainolds against Hart, ibid.]
3 In Comment, ad Galat. [cap. i. : Opp. Tom. iv. Part i. col.
223.]
4 Advors .Tovinian. [Lib. i. : Opp. Torn. TV. Part ii. col. 108.]
[Ibid.]
17
258 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX.
they grounded? We are seeking for Saint Peter's
supremacy in the Scripture ; where do we there find
this power of the kingdom given him by Christ ? Or
what ancient Father ever so expounded this text of
the keys?
We grant, many expressions are found in the
Fathers in honour of Saint Peter. Saint Augustine
affirms his ' primacy is conspicuous and pre-eminent
with excellent grace :' Saint Chrysostom calleth him
'the mouth,' 'the chief/ 'the top of the company;'
Theodoret styles him, ' the prince ; ' Epiphanius ' the
highest ; ' Saint Augustine ' the head, president and
first of the Apostles ; ' which he proveth out of Saint
Cyprian, who saith, ' the Lord chose Peter first ; ' and
Saint Jerome saith, ' he was the head, that occasion
of schism might be taken away,' and gives him the
honour of great authority ; all these were used by
Hart 1 against Rainolds.
To them all Doctor Eainolds 2 gives clear and
satisfactory answers, shewing largely that they signify
nothing but a primacy of election, or order, or dignity,
or esteem, and authority in that sense ; or a primacy
in grace and gifts, viz. a principality or chiefness in
worth ; or a primacy of presidentship in assemblies,
as the mouth and moderator ; or the head of unity
and order, as Jerome 3 means : but it is not to be
proved from any or all of these encomiums, that the
Fathers believed that the other Apostles were under
Saint Peter as their governor, or that he had any
real power given him by Christ more than they.
i [Conference, p. 172.] 2 [Ibid. pp. 172, et seqq.j
3 [Quoted above, p. 257, note 5.]
CHAP. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 259
The words of Saint Cyprian 1 are plain and full.
"Albeit Christ," saith he, "gave equal power to all
the Apostles after his resurrection, and said, As my
Father, &c. ; yet to declare unity, He disposed by his
authority the original of that unity, beginning in one.
No doubt," saith he, "the rest were the same that
Peter was, endued with the like fellowship (pari con-
sortio) of honour and power ; but the beginning doth
come from unity, that the Church of Christ may be
shewed to be but one."
Thus this topic of the Fathers' expounding the
text being found to fail, another device, and such a
one as the very detection both answers and shames
the authors, is fled unto, viz. to corrupt instead of
purging the Fathers, and to make them speak home
indeed.
The place of Saint Cyprian just now set, is a very
clear instance of this black art, allowed by the Popes
themselves ; the place which in the former prints was
thought to make rather for an equality of all the
Apostles in power, as it is set down in the Roman-
purged Cyprian, is thus altered by addition of these
words, ' and the primacy is given to Peter.' Again He
appointed one Church, 'and the chair to be one;' and
to make all sure, the Antwerp Cyprian addeth con
veniently Peter's chair : and then, saith he, who for-
saketh ' Peter's ' chair, on which the Church was
founded, &c. And by this time Peter's primacy is
the Pope's supremacy 2 .
1 De Unitate Eccles. 3.
2 See Dr. Rainolds [against Hart], pp. 166 171.
172
260 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX.
But Thomas Aquinas 1 hath dealt worse with St
Cyril, fathering a ' treasure ' upon him which he never
owned, beyond all tolerable defence. To the Grecians
St Cyril is brought in speaking thus : ' Christ did
commit a full and ample power both to Peter and
his successors '../the Apostles in the Gospels and
Epistles have affirmed (in every doctrine) Peter and
his Church to be in stead of God ; and to him, even
to Peter, all do bow by the Law of God, and the
Princes of the world are obedient to him, even as to
the Lord Jesus; and we as being members must
cleave unto our head, the Pope and the Apostolic
See,' &c.
Now either St Cyril said thus, or not. If he did,
who will believe him that shall make such stories, and
father them upon every doctrine in the New Testa
ment, contrary to common sense and the knowledge
of all ; or trust his cause to the interpretation of such
Fathers ? But if this Book called St Cyril's ' Trea
sure' be none of St Cyril's, as certainly it is not,
then, though I am provoked, I shall say no more, but
that we should weigh the reasons, but not the autho
rity, of such a schoolman, especially in his master's
cause. It is certain, the words are not to be found in
those parts of Cyril's ' Treasure ' which are extant, as
Hart 2 acknowledged to Dr Kainolds.
Yet the abuse of single Fathers is not so heinous
a thing as Thomas committed against six hundred
Bishops, even the general Council of Chalcedon, when
1 [In Opusculo contra Errores Grsecorum ad Urban IV., quoted
at length by Rainolds, ubi supra, p. 159.]
2 [Ibid. p. 160.]
CHAP. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 261
he saith they decreed thus : "If any Bishop be ac
cused, let him appeal freely to the Pope of Rome,
because we have Peter for a rock of refuge ; and he
alone hath right with freedom of power, in the stead
of God, to judge and try the crime of a Bishop,
according to the keys which the Lord did give him ;"
calling the Pope ' the mos : holy, apostolic, and uni
versal Patriarch of the whole world 1 .' Now in that
Council there is not a word of all this ; and they
answer, heretics have razed it out, if you will believe
it, but neither Surius nor Carranza find any thing
wanting 2 . I shall only make this note, that seeing the
Fathers have been so long in the hands of those men
that stick at nothing that may advance the power of
their master, it is no wonder that their learned adver
saries are unwilling to trust their cause with such
judges, but rather appeal to the true Canon, and call
for Scripture.
One would think this were enough : but this
opinion of the equality of power among the Apostles
was not only the concurrent judgment of the ancients,
but even of learned later men in the Church of Rome,
even from these words, Tu es Petrus, etc., upon unan
swerable reason, Lyra 3 , Durand a St Porciano 4 , both
in the fourteenth century, and Abulensis 5 in the fif
teenth century. The latter argues earnestly, ' that
none of the Apostles did understand those words of
1 [Sec Rainolds, ibid. p. 163.]
2 [Ibid.]
3 [Nicol. dc Lyra, Postil. in Mat. xvi. 18, 19.]
4 [Commentar. super iv. Sentcnt. Distinct, xvm. Qiucst. n.]
5 In Matth. xviii. Quecst. vn. ; in Matth. xx. QuiBSt. LXXXIII.
LXXXIV.
262 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX.
Christ to give any supremacy to Peter ; for after
wards they contended for superiority, Matthew xviii.,
and after that, the two sons of Zebedee desire it,
Matthew xx., and at the last supper the question is
put again, Luke xxii.' Therefore he concludes, ' they
thought themselves equal till Christ's death, when
they knew not which of them should be greatest 1 .'
This was the common interpretation of the Doctors
of Paris, and of Adolphus Archbishop of Cologne, and
of the Bishops of his province ; the decrees of whose
Synod, with this interpretation, were ratified in every
point by Charles the Fifth, and enjoined to be ob
served 2 .
Thus the chief ground of St Peter's supremacy is
sunk, and there is little hopes that any other text will
hold up that weighty superstructure.
Another Scripture much insisted on for the sup-
3rd port of St Peter's supremacy, is John xxi. 14 17 :
" Peter, lovest thou me ? Feed my sheep, feed my
lambs :" wherein is committed to Peter the power of
the whole Church.
Answer. It is answered, this text gives not any commission
or power to St Peter ; it gives him charge and com
mandment to execute his commission received before.
Now it hath appeared sufficiently, that the commission
was given equally to all the Apostles in those words,
" as my Father sent me, so send I you," &c. ; so that
the power of feeding, and the duty of pastors, was
i
See Cusanus his contemporary, de Concord. Cathol. Lib. in.
c. 13, c. 34, and Franciscus a Victoria, [both quoted at length by
Dr. Hammond, ' Dispatcher Dispatcht,' chap. 11. sect. ii. $ 2.]
2 Apud Concil. ed. Bin. A. p. 1549; [Tom. ix. p. 304, col. 2, B.J
CIIAI-. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 263
alike to them all. Though this charge was given to
Peter by name here, with so many items perhaps
intimating his repeated "prevarications, yet were they
all sent, and all charged with a larger province than
these words to Peter import : ' Teach all nations,'
Preach the Gospel to every creature,' are our
Saviour's charge to them all.
' In the apostolic power all were equal' (saith Objection.
Hart 1 ), 'not in the pastoral charge.'
We answer with a distinction (allowed by Staple- Answer.
ton 2 ) of the name Pastor; it is special and distinct
from Apostle; "some Apostles... some Pastors 3 ;"
or general and common to all commissioned to preach
the Gospel. So Christ is called Pastor 4 , and all the
Apostles were Pastors as well as Peter.
But ' St Peter was the Pastor over the rest ; for Objection.
he is charged to feed all the sheep, the whole Church.
Now the rest of the Apostles were Christ's sheep, and
members of his Church 5 .'
Christ saith not to Peter, Feed all my sheep, but Answer,
he doth say to them all, ' Preach the Gospel to every
creature 6 .' And if Peter have power over the rest,
because they are sheep, and he is to feed the sheep ;
then every one of the rest have power over Peter
because he is a creature, and they are to preach to
every creature. But this is trifling ; so is all that is
further argued from this text ; though by feeding we
understand ruling, ruling of pastors, or what you will,
1 [Conference, p. 87. j
2 [Do Princip. Doctrin. Lit', vi. <, 7.J
:! Eph. iv. [11.] l [John x. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 25.]
\l\rt. [as a>>ovf. p. 90.] Mark xvi. 15.1
264 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX.
while whatsoever was charged on Peter here is within
the same commission, wherein Peter and all the rest
of the Apostles are equally empowered as before ; and
that of Bellarmine l , ' that Peter was to feed the sheep
as ordinary pastor, the Apostles as extraordinary am
bassadors/ is altogether as groundless ; as if there
were any colour of reason that an ordinary pastor
should have more power than an extraordinary am
bassador.
Dr Hammond observes, ' Bellarmine was not the
author of that artifice ; Cajetan and Victoria had used
it before him, and obtained it the honour of coming
into the Council of Trent, Avhere the Bishop of Gra
nada derided it, and the authors of it ; and soon after
the Bishop of Paris expressly affirmed that Cajetan
was (about fifty years before) the first deviser of it.
The Bishop of Granada confutes it by Scripture, as
understood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen, as he
affirmed 2 .'
To conclude this matter, 'Feed my sheep' are not
a ground for the Pope's presidency, which are found
not to be so of Peter's above the body of the uni
versal Church ; as was publicly pronounced in the
Convent of the Friars-Minors, (as appears by the
Opuaculum 3 of John, Patriarch of Antioch). And Car
dinal Cusanus 4 , who lived at the same time, makes
1 [Dc Romano Pontif. Lib. i. c. 11.]
2 [' Dispatcher Dispatcht,' chap. n. sect. ii. 15 : Works, Vol.
ii. p. 197.]
3 [This was a treatise ' de Superioritate Concilii supra Papam,'
publicly recited at Basle as above mentioned. It is printed among
the Acts of the Council of Basle. Vid. Concil. ed. Labb. Tom. xn.
P- !>12.1 J De Concord. Cath. Lib. n. c. 23.
CHAP. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 265
them words of precept, not of institution ; and both
are agreeable to the interpretation of the ancients l .
It is time to look further. The third great place Luke xxii.
32
of argument is Luke xxii. 32 : " Thou being con
verted, strengthen thy brethren." Whence Hart 2 rea
sons thus : ' Christ commands Peter to strengthen his
brethren, and his brethren were the Apostles ; there
fore he was to strengthen the Apostles, and by conse
quence he must be their Supreme Head.'
When Hart urged this argument with all his wit Answer.
and might, and Dr Rainolds had made it evident,
there is no authority given by the words, nor carried
in the word ' strengthen,' that equals and inferiors are
not capable of it as well as superiors much less can
it necessarily imply a supremacy over the whole
Church he confesseth with Stapleton, that Christ
gave the power to Peter after his resurrection, when
he said to him, ' Feed my lambs,' (which we have
weighed before), but those words of strengthening,
&c., he spake before his death, and did but fttturam
insinuaverat, ' insinuate therein/ and (as Hart's word*
is) give an inkling that he would make him Supreme
Head ; then if he did not make him so afterward, he
did it not at all.
That Peter had power over the rest of the Apos- Acts i. 15.
ties, would be proved (as before) from the promise
and commission of Christ, so at last by Peter's execu-
1 [See Dr. Hammond, as above, p. 196, and for a great number
of other authorities, Mr. Palmer's 'Treatise on the Church,' Part
vn. chap. 1.]
2 [Conference, p. 103. J
3 [p. 110.]
2(>6 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX.
tion ; he proposed the election of a new Apostle in
the room of Judas.
Answer. Therefore he was speaker (at least pro tempore) in
the assembly, but not a prince or supreme Monarch.
Objection. But St Chrysostom saith, 'that though Peter's
modesty was commendable for doing all things by
common advice and consent, and nothing by his own
authority'; yet addeth, that 'no doubt it was lawful
for Peter to have chosen Matthias himself 1 .'
Yet the same Father calls this seat given him by
the rest ' a Primacy 2 ,' not a Supremacy. Again, he
derives this Primacy from the modesty of the Apos
tles (not the donation of Christ), as Hart 3 confcsseth.
But indeed the Father exceeded in his charity ; and
it is he that said that Peter might have chosen one
himself ; the Scripture saith not that he might, yea it
saith he did not. And the argument from Peter's
execution of this power is come to this, that he did
not execute it.
Besides, many Fathers (and in Council too) toge
ther with St Cyprian pronounce, that Peter proposing
the matter, to the end it might be carried by com
mon advice and voice, did according to the lessons
and precepts of God ; therefore, jure Diuino, they
thought Peter had no such power, as Dr Bainolds 4
shews.
But ' when Peter had been heard, all the multi-
1 [This is the objection of Hart against Rainokls, p. 115. He
is referring to St. Chrysostom, in Act. Apostol. Horn. in. ; Opp.
Tom. ix. p. 25, B; cd. Paris. 1731.]
2 [In Matt. Horn. L. (al. LI.); Opp. Tom. VH. p. 515, E. The
original is rS>v npaiTflwt', K.T. X.]
3 [Ibid. p. LHi.J [p. 1 Ifi
CHAP. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 267
tude held their peace, and James and all the Elders
did agree unto Peter's sentence.'
What is this to prove his supremacy ? Because Answer.
the Council, having heard Gamaliel 1 , agreed to him,
was therefore Gamaliel (a Pharisee, a doctor of the
law, whom all the people honoured,) Supreme Head,
and superior to the High-priest and Council ? And if
Jerome 2 say, Peter was ' princeps decreti,' he acknow
ledged perhaps the reason, the motion, and the de
livery or declaration of it, principally to Peter, the
first author of the sentence, as the same Jerome 3 calls
him, and explains himself. So was Tully called 4 , viz.
' prince of decrees,' when he was neither president
nor prince of the Senate.
We conclude that Peter had no superiority of
power or government over the rest of the Apostles, or
the Avhole Church ; because it neither was promised
him, nor given him, nor executed by him, notAvith-
standing Bellarmine's 5 twenty-eight prerogatives of
St Peter ; from which I presume none can be so
hardy as to venture to argue, many of them being
uncertain, some vain and trifling, and some common
with the rest of the Apostles, but neither divisim or
conjunctim sufficient to make or to evince any real
supremacy of power in St Peter.
1 [Acts v. 34.]
2 [Epist. ad Augustin. LXXV. (al. xi.) Opp. Augustin. Tom. 11.
col. 130, A; od. Antvcrp. 1700.]
3 [Ibid, c.]
4 Pro Corn. Balbo [c. xxvn. : " Harum ego sententiarum prin-
et auctor fui."]
5 [See following chapter, sect, i.]
268 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX.
It is indeed, said by some of the Fathers, that the
government of the world and the care of the whole
Church was committed to Peter ; but it is plain they
speak of his Apostleship, for they say the same of
Paul 1 , and the like of Timothy 2 , who was never re
puted universal monarch. ' Paul and Peter had two
different primacies 3 ,' had the ' same dignity,' ' were
equal 4 .'
1 [Dr. Barrow (Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy; Works,
Vol. I. p. 587; ed. 1716) gives five instances of this usage from
St. Chrysostom only.]
2 [The words are, Tr/v TTJS oiKovpfvrjs n-pocrraa-iav eyK.f^(ipio-p.evos.
Homil. vi. adv. Judseos : Opp. Tom. i. p. 142.]
3 S. Ambros. [The following seems to be the passage referred to :
"Petrum solum nominat, et sibi comparat, quia primatum ipse
acceperat ad fundandam ecclesiam ; se quoque pari modo electum,
ut primatum habeat in fundandis gentium ecclesiis." In Epist. ad
Galat. cap. ii. : Opp. Tom. m. col. 470, 471; ed. Paris. 1614.]
4 Chrysost. [Kai fteuawm avrois op-oTipov ovra \onrov, Kal ov rols
aXXots tavrbv, dXXa ra> Kopv<pal(o crvyKpivei, dfiKvus OTI rijs avrfjs e/cacr-
TOS dirtXava-fv aias. In cap. n. Epist. ad Galat. Opp. Tom. x.
pp. 684, 685 ; ed. Paris. 1732. See also St. Chrysostom and CEcu-
inenius, on 2 Cor. xii. 11.]
CHAPTER XXI.
OF THE POPE'S SUCCESSION.
I HAVE laboured the more to scatter the pretences
of Saint Peter's supremacy, because (though the
consequence be not good from that to the Pope's,
yet) it is a demonstration, that if Saint Peter had it
not, the Pope cannot have it, as his Successor, jure
Divino.
We must leave Saint Peter's supremacy to stand
or fall to the reason of the discourse before, and
must now examine the plea of Successor, and the
Pope's Authority over the Church, as he is Successor
to Saint Peter.
Now that it may appear we love not quarrelling,
we shall not dispute whether Peter was a Bishop of
a particular See ? Whether he was ever at Eome ?
Whether Rome was at first converted by him ? Whe
ther he was Bishop of Rome ? Whether he resided
there for any considerable time ? Whether he died
there ? Whether the Pope had any honour as his
Successor ? Or lastly, whether the Pope had the
primacy of all Bishops in the former ages of the
Church ? It is well known that few adversaries would
let you run away quietly with all or any one of these.
Yet there are two things that I shrewdly ques
tion : (1) Whether the Pope had at first the Primacy
itself, as Successor of Saint Peter. (2) Much more.
270 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI.
whether by that succession he received supreme power
over the whole Church, jure Divino. The main point
to be proved is the last, yet it may be worth the while
to examine the first.
SECTION I.
WHETHER THE PRIMACY OF PETER DESCENDED
TO THE BISHOPS OF ROME ? NEG.
IT doth not appear that Saint Peter had his Pri
macy over the rest of the Apostles, as Bishop,
much less as Bishop of Eome ; but the contrary doth
appear.
Reason I. n\ Because he Avas Primate long before he was
Before.
Bishop, if he was so at all ; and therefore, if he was
Primate, ratione muneris, or with respect to any office,
it was that of his Apostleship, and not of his Episco
pacy : the consequence then is evident, that the Pope
could not succeed Saint Peter in the Primacy, as
Bishop of Rome, or indeed in any sense ; for the
apostolical office was extraordinary, and did not de
scend by succession, as the Romanists yield.
Not as That Saint Peter was Primate, not as Bishop, but
Bishop.
was antecedently so, it is most apparent upon the
grounds of it allowed and pleaded by our adversaries ;
because he was first called to the Apostleship ; he was
named ' the first' of the Apostles ; he had the first
promise of the keys ; he was the first converter of
the Gentiles, &c. ' Privilegium personate cum persona
extinyuitur.'
CHAP. XXL] L'MVKKSAL PASTOR. 271
(2) Indeed the Primacy of Saint Peter arose from j{ ea son n.
such personal respects and grounds l , that rendered it JonaUe-
incapable of succession ; and therefore none could sp
derive that prerogative, though they had succeeded
him both as Bishop and Apostle.
These prerogatives of Saint Peter, which Bellar-
mine 2 himself lays down as the grounds and argu
ments of his Primacy, are generally such at least all
of them that appear in the Scriptures, all of them but
such as beg the question, while the others depend
on notorious fables : as appears at first view.
(1) Saint Peter was Primate, because his name 21 Prero
gatives, ac-
was changed by Christ. (2) Because he was always cording to
first named. (3) He alone walked on the waters. (4) mine.
He had peculiar revelation. (5) He paid tribute with
Christ. (6) He was the chief in the miraculous fish
ing. (7) He is commanded to strengthen his brethren.
(8) He was the first of the Apostles that saw Christ
risen from the dead. (9). His feet Christ first washed.
(10) Christ foretold his death to him alone. (11) He
was president at the election of Matthias. (12) He
first preached after the Holy Ghost was given. (13)
He did the first miracle. (14) He condemned the
hypocrisy of Ananias, &c. (15) He passed through
all quarters, Acts ix. 32. (16) He first preached to
the Gentiles. (17) He was miraculously delivered out
of prison. (18) Paul envied him. (19) Christ bap
tized him alone. (20) He detected and condemned
1 [See, on the personal pre-eminence of St. Peter, Barrow's Trea
tise on the Pope's Supremacy, Suppos. i.]
2 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. i., cap. xvii. et seqq.
272 UNIVERSAL PASTOR, [CHAP. XXI.
Simon Magus. (21) He spake first in the Council,
Acts xv.
These are twenty-one of the prerogatives of Saint
Peter, which Bellarmine makes grounds and argu
ments of his Primacy ; which, if one say them over,
and endeavour to apply them to any but Saint Peter's
Argument, (individual) person, it will appear impossible ; the rea
sons of this Primacy cannot be supposed out of Pe
ter's person ; therefore the Primacy cannot pass to
his Successor. Mark them, and you Avill find they are
all either acts done by Saint Peter, or graces received
by him ; and so personally in him, that whatsoever
depends on them must needs die with Saint Peter's
person, and cannot be inherited by his Successor.
Indeed, this Primacy rose of such grounds, and
was in Saint Peter by consequence of them ; had the
Primacy been an office, or a grace given, of or in or
for itself, without respect to any of these grounds,
there had been some shadow (and but a shadow) for its
succession ; but it having an essential dependence on
those reasons which were peculiar and proper to Saint
Peter's person, they cease together.
Other se- But, lest it should be thought, that there is more
ven Prero- < .
gatives. of argument in the other seven prerogatives which
Bellarmine mentioned 1 , I beg my reader's pardon to
set them down also. The first is, perpetual stability
is promised to Peter and his See. (2) He alone was
ordained Bishop by Christ, and the rest by him 2 .
1 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. I. c. xxiii. xxiv.]
2 [The authority annexed by Fulwood is an epistle ascribed to
Anacletus, fourth bishop of Rome, where it is asserted, ' In Novo
CHAP. XXI J UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 273
He placed his seat at Rome. (4) Christ appeared to
him a little before he died ; therefore Primate ? and
his successor too? (5) The Churches which he
founded were always counted patriarchal. (6) The
feast of his chair was celebrated. (7) And his name
added to the name of the Trinity, in literis formatis.
What then was he not yet Primate before all this?
Was not his Primacy founded upon the reasons above ?
Will you say he was not Primate, or by virtue of his
Primacy was not President in the two Councils men
tioned ? And if that be more than confessed, (even
pleaded by you), must not the former personal re
spects be the grounds of that Primacy ? And is it
possible for such a Primacy by succession to descend
to any other person ? None, that consider, will say it.
The Fathers acknowledge a Primacy in St Peter, Fathers.
but upon such personal grounds as are mentioned.
Saint Peter was ' called a rock," saith Saint Ambrose 1
(if the book be his), ' because he was the first that
laid the foundation of faith among the nations.' Ce-
rameus 2 gives him likewise, primus aditus cedificationis
gpiritualis.
Testamento post Christum Dominum a Petro sacerdotalis coepit
ordo,' &c. Vid. Gratian. Decret., Part. i. : Distinct, xxi. c. ii. That
the epistle is spurious was demonstrated by Bp. Jewel, 'Controversy
with Harding,' pp. 341, 342; ed. Parker Soc. 1843.]
1 [" Petra enim dicitur eo quod primus in nationibus fidei fun-
dameuta posuerit." Concio n., de Sanctis. According to Cave,
(Histor. Liter, sub Ambros.) these Sermons are by some attributed
to Maximus of Turin.]
2 [This writer was Theophanes Cerameus, a Sicilian archbishop
of the llth Century. He wrote numerous homilies, which were
printed at Paris. 1644: the passage to which Fullwood refers,
18
274
UNIVERSAL PASTOR.
[CHAP. XXI.
Answer.
Objection. Christianorum Pontifex primus Petrus, et reliquornin
Apostolorum Princeps, propter virtutis amplitudinem 1 .
Answer. jje was Prince, 'for the greatness of his virtue.'
Virtue is a personal gift, and cannot pass by succession.
Objection. Saint Chrysostom, indeed, is urged against us,
' Curam, turn Petro, turn Petri successoribus commit-
tebat 2 .
It is granted, Peter had his successors in time
and place, and that is all the words, KOI rots /uer* e/<eti>oi/
(to be rendered 'those which followed him'), will
conclude.
However, admit the Bishop of Rome did succeed
Saint Peter in his 'care', as the word is; doth it follow
that he succeeded him in his Primacy ? which hath
appeared not capable of succession.
Application of Section I.
Infer
ence i.
Therefore, I conclude that whatsoever Primacy
the Bishop of Rome obtained in the ancient Church,
it was not the Primacy of Saint Peter, or as he was
successor of Saint Peter in his Primacy ; but he ob
tained it upon other grounds, not those antecedent in
Saint Peter, but such as arose afterwards, and were
peculiar to the Church of Rome. A note as easy to
be observed by such as look into the practice of the
is in Homil. XLIX. ; the Greek being a$op/^ *. r. X. For a similar
passage see Tertullian, de Pudicitia, c. XXL]
1 Euseb. [Hist. Eccl. Lib. n. c. 14. The Greek, however, is far
less grandiloquent : Tov Kaprtpov ical peyav ra>v anoo-To\a>i>, rov aperrjs
(VfKa rS)V AOITTCOJ/ anavraiv Trpor/yopov, Hfrpov, K.T. X.J
2 De Sacerdotio, [Lib. II. C. 1, *va ra irpo^ara KT^a-rjrai ravra, a ra
KOI TOIS p.(T KtlVOt> (V( \* ipl<T( J].
CHAP. XXI.J UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 27-5
ancient Church, as of great caution and use in this
controversy. The grounds are known to be such as
these, because Rome was the imperial city, because
the Church of Rome was then most famous for the
Christian faith, because she was the most noted seat
of true tradition, because her Bishops were most
eminent for piety, learning, and a charitable care for
other Churches ; and lastly, perhaps, because Saint
Peter had been Bishop there his memory might de
flect some honour, at least by way of motive, on the
Bishop of Rome ; as the Council of Sardica moveth l ,
' If it please you, let us honour the memory of Saint
Peter :' but though the memory of Saint Peter might
be used as an argument of the Pope's priority, it is
far from concluding his inheriting Saint Peter's Pri
macy ; though he had honour by being his successor.
(2) It further follows, that the Primacy of that inference
see heretofore was not jure Divino, but from the Primacy
civility of the world, and the courtesy of princes, and Divino.
the gratitude of the Church.
Indeed, this Primacy was not an office, but an
honour ; and that honour was not given by any solemn
grant of God or man, but seems to have gained upon
the world insensibly, and by degrees, till it became a
custom, as the Council of Nice 2 intimates.
(3) Lastly, it follows that this Primacy was not inference
. in.
derived to the succeeding Bishops of Rome ; it stand- ^ot in
succeeding
ing upon such temporary grounds as too soon failed : Popes.
for when that which was the cause of it ceased, no
wonder if the honour was denied. When the faith of
the see was turned to infidelity, and blasphemy, and
1 [See above, p. 63.] 2 [s cc above, p. 34.]
182
'276 UNIVERSAL PASTOR, [CHAP. XXI.
atheism, and sorcery, (as their own men say) : when
their piety was turned into such villanies of pride,
simony, uncleanness, and monstrous lewdness, (as
themselves report) ; when their care and vigilance was
turned into methods of wasting and destroying the
Churches l ; when the exordium unitatis was turned
into a head of Schism and division ; no wonder that
the Primacy and honour of the See of Rome, which
was raised and stood upon the contrary grounds, was
at length discovered to be groundless, and the former
Primacy which stood on courtesy, and was exalted by
an usurped supremacy and tyranny, was thrown off
by us, and our ancient liberty is repossessed, and the
glory of Rome is so far departed.
SECTION II.
WHETHER THE POPE BE SUPREME AS SUCCESSOR OF
PETER BY DIVINE RIGHT? NEG. NOT PRIMATE AS
SUCH PETER HIMSELF NOT SUPREME POPE DID
NOT SUCCEED HIM AT ALL.
is the last refuge, and the meaning of it is,
that our Saviour made Saint Peter universal Mo
narch of the whole Church, and intended the Pope of
Rome should succeed him in that power.
All possible defence herein hath been prevented ;
for if the Bishop of Rome did not succeed him in his
Primacy, how should he succeed him in his Supre
macy ? Again, if Saint Peter had no such Supremacy,
1 [See a collection of papal enormities in Rainokls' 'Conference
with Hart,' pp. 275, et seqq.]
CHAI-. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 277
as hath appeared, how should the Pope receive it as
his successor ? Besides, whatever power Saint Peter
had, it doth no way appear that the Pope should suc
ceed him in it ; much less in our Saviour's intention,
or by Divine right.
However, let us try their colours. Will they
maintain it, that Christ appointed the Bishops of
Rome to succeed St Peter in so great a power ? The
claim is considerable ; the whole world in all ages is
concerned ; none could give this privilege of suc
cession but the giver of the power . But where did
He do it ? Where or how, when or by whom, was it
expressed? Should not the grant of so great an
empire, wherein all are so highly concerned, espe
cially when it is disputed and pretended, be pro
duced ?
Instead of plain proof we are put off with obscure
and vanishing shadows, such as follow r .
SECTION III.
ARGUMENT I. PETER ASSIGNED IT.
INSTEAD of proving that Christ did, they say that Ar gu -
St Peter, when he died, bestowed the Supremacy m
upon the Bishops of Rome, in words to this effect, as
Hart 1 expresseth them : "I ordain this Clement to be
your Bishop, unto whom alone I commit the chair of
my preaching and doctrine ; and I give to him that
1 ['Conference with Rainolds/ p. 220, on the- authority of tin-
Epistle ' ad Jacohum, Fratrem Domini.']
278 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI.
power of binding and loosing, which Christ gave to
me."
Answer. And what then ? ' I ordain ' then he had it not,
as Peter's successor by Divine right, but as a gift
and legacy of St Peter. (2) ' This Clement ' a foul
blot to the story ; for it is plain in records l , that
Linus continued Bishop eleven years after Peter's
death, and Cletus twelve after Linus, before Clemens
had the chair. ' Your Bishop' that is the Bishop of
Rome ; what is this to the Universal Bishop ? 'And I
give to him' what? The chair of preaching and
doctrine, and the power of the keys, viz. no more
than is given to every Bishop at his Ordination. Now
it is observable, though this pitiful story signify just
nothing, yet what strange arts and stretches of in
vention are forced to support it 2 , and to render it
possible, though all in vain.
SECTION IV.
ARGUMENT II BISHOP OF ANTIOCH DID NOT
SUCCEED ERGO, OF ROME.
i ELLARMINE 3 argues more subtilly, yet sup-
poseth more strongly than he argues. Pontifex
Romanus, ' the High-priest of Rome,' succeeded St
Peter (dying at Rome) in his whole dignity and power ;
for there was never any that affirmed himself to be
St Peter's successor any way, or was accounted for
1 [See Bp. Pearson's 'Dissertation;' Minor Theological Works,
Vol. II. pp. 436, et seqq.]
2 Vid. Rainolds and Hart, [pp. 220, et seqq.]
3 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. n. cap. iv.]
CHAP. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 279
such, besides the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of
Antioch ; but the Bishop of Antioch did not succeed
St Peter, in pontificate Ecclesice totius ; therefore the
Bishop of Rome did.
(1) He supposeth that St Peter's successor sue- Answers
ceeded him in all dignity and power, but it is ac
knowledged by his friends, there was no succession
of the apostolic, but only of the episcopal power.
(2) If so, then Linus. Cletus, and Clemens, should
have had dignity and power over John and the
other Apostles (who lived after St Peter), as their
Pastor and Head, according to their own way of
arguing. (3) Besides, St Peter had power of casting
out of devils, &c., and doing such miracles as the
Pope pretends not to do. Lastly, what if the Pope
affirms that he is, and others account him to be, St
Peter's successor ? The point requires the truth
thereof to be shewn, jure Divino.
SECTION V.
ARGUMENT III. ST. PETER DIED AT ROME THEN DE
FACTO, NOT DE FIDE.
"DELLARMINE saith 1 , the succession itself is jure Argu-
D-r-k T_ ii ment in.
Divino, but the ratio successioms arose out of the
fact of St Peter planting his see and dying at Rome,
and not from Christ's first institution. He then doubts
whether this succession be so according to his own
position, (licet forte non sit de jure Divino); but neither
shews the succession itself to be Christ's institution
at all, nor proves the tradition of Peter, on which he
1 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. n. c. xii.]
280 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI.
seems to lay his stress ; and we may guess why he
doth not.
Answer. j n short, if the succession of the Bishop of Rome
be of Faith, it is so either in jure or in facto ; but
neither is proved. Yea the contrary is acknowledged
by Bellarmine himself. Not in right, because that is
not certo Divinum, as Bellarmine confesseth j nor in
fact, because before Peter's death, which introduced
no change in the Faith, as Bellarmine also confesseth,
this Succession was not of Faith.
Indeed it is Avell observed 1 , that the whole weight
of Bellarmine's reasoning is founded in fact ; then
where is the jus Divinum f (2) In such fact of Peter
as is not found in Scripture, or can be proved any
way. (3) In such fact as cannot constitute a right
either Divine or human. (4) In such fact as cannot
conclude a right, in the sense of the most learned
Romanists 2 ; who contend, that the union of the
bishopric of the City and the World, is only per acci-
dens, and not jure Divino, vel imperio Christi.
But when the uncertainty of that fact, on which
the right of so great and vast an empire is raised, is
considered, what further answer can be expected ?
For is it not uncertain whether Peter were ever at
Rome 3 ? Or whether he was ever Bishop of Rome ?
Or whether he died at Rome ? Or whether Christ
called him back that he might die at Rome? Or
1 [The allusion has not been discovered.]
2 Scotus, in Lib. iv. Sentcnt. Distinct, xxiv. ; Cordubensis
[Antonius], [Tractat Vonet. 1569], Lib. iv. Qusest. i. ; Cajetan, dc
Primat. Papse, c. xxiii. ; Bannes, in n. [i. e. in Partem secundam
S. Thomse.] Qusest. I. $ 10. [Duaci, 1615.]
3 [These points are discussed by Rainolds and Hart, 'Conference,'
pp. 217, ot seqq.]
CHAP. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 281
whether he ordained Clement to succeed him at Rome ?
Indeed there is little else certain about the matter
but this, that Peter did not derive to him that suc
ceeded him, and his successors for ever, his whole
dignity and power, and a greater authority than he
had himself, jure Divino.
But if we allow all the uncertainties mentioned to
be most certain, we need not fear to look the argu
ment, with all its attendants and strength, in the face.
Peter was Bishop of Rome, was warned by Christ
immediately to place his seat at Rome, to stay and
die at Rome, and before he died, he appointed one to
succeed him in his bishopric at Rome ; therefore the
Bishops of Rome successively are Universal Pastors,
and have Supreme Power over the whole Church, jure
Divino. Is not the cause rendered suspicious by such
arguments ? and indeed desperate, that needs them,
and has no better?
SECTION VI.
ARGUMENT IV. COUNCILS POPES FATHERS.
BELLARMLNE 1 tells us boldly that the Primacy Argument,
of the Roman High-priest is proved out of the
Councils, the testimonies of Popes, by the consent of
the Fathers, both Greek and Latin.
These great words are no arguments ; the matter Answer.
hath been examined under all these topics, and not
one of them proves a Supremacy of power over the
1 [Do Romano Pontif. Lib. n. c. 13.]
282 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI.
whole Church to have been anciently in the Pope,
much less from the beginning and jure Divino ; espe
cially when St Augustine and the Greek Fathers
directly opposed it as an usurpation 1 .
A primacy of order is not in the question, though
that also was obtained by the ancient Popes only
more humano, and on temporary reasons, as hath
before appeared. But as a learned man saith, the
Primacy of a monarchical power in the Bishop of
Rome was never affirmed by airy ancient Council, or
by any one of the ancient Fathers, or so much as
dreamt of; and at what time afterwards the Pope
took upon him to be a monarch, it should be inquired
quo jure, ' by what right ' he did so, whether by Di
vine, human, or altogether by his own, i.e. no right.
SECTION VII.
ARGUMENT V. THE PREVENTION OF SCHISM
ST. JEROME.
' A
JLA-
PRIMACY was given to Peter for preventing
Schism/ as St Hierome saith 2 . Now hence they
urge that a mere precedency of order is not sufficient
for that.
Answer. The inference is not Divine; it is not St Hierome's;
it is only for St Peter, and reacheth not the Pope.
Besides it plainly argues a mistake of St Jerome's
assertion, and would force him to a contradiction. For
immediately before, he teacheth that the Church is
1 [See above, p. 77.] 2 [Adv. Jovinian. quoted above, p. 257.]
CHAP. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 283
built equally on all the Apostles, and that they all
receive the keys, and that the firmness of the Church
is equally grounded on them all ; so that what Primacy
he meant, it consisted with equality, as monarchy
cannot.
Therefore St Hierome more plainly in another
place affirms l , that ' wherever there is a Bishop, whe
ther at Rome, or at Eugubium, ejusdem meriti est, ejus-
dem est et sacerdotii.' Again, ' it is neither riches nor
poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower/ but
' they are all the Apostles' successors.'
SECTION VIII.
ARGUMENT VI. CHURCH COMMITTED TO HIM.
s
T Chrysostom saith 2 , ' the care of the Church was Ar g u-
committed, as to Peter so to his Successors ; '
therefore the Bishops of Rome, being Successors of
St Peter in that chair, have the care, and consequently
the power committed to them, which was committed
to Peter.
True ; the care and power of a Bishop, not of an Answer.
Apostle or Universal Monarch ; the commission of all
other Bishops carried care and power also.
But indeed this place proves not so much as that
the Pope is Peter's Successor in either, much less jure
Divino (which was the thing to be proved): icai
1 Epist. ad Evagrium, [LXXXV.]
2 [De Sacerdotio, Lib. n. c. 1.]
284 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAI>. XXI.
per' eiceivot', "those which followed' in time and place,
not otherwise; as before 1 .
SECTION IX.
ARGUMENT VII. ' ONE CHAIR' OPTATUS CYPRIAN-
AMBROSE AC ACIUS.
mem vii '^P^ERE is one chair' (saith Optatus 2 ) quce est prlmo
-*- de dotibus, in which Peter sat first ; Linus suc
ceeded him, and Clemens Linus.'
Oputus. Optatus speaks nothing against the title or power
of other chairs, or for the pre-eminence of power in
this one chair above the rest.
He intended not to exclude the other apostolical
seats from the honour or power of chairs; for he
saith as well that James sat at Jerusalem, and John
at Ephesus, as that Peter sat at Rome, which Ter-
tullian calls ' apostolicas cathedras, all presiding in their
own places 3 .'
It is most evident that Optatus calls the chair of
Peter one, not because of any superiority over other
apostolical chairs, but because of the unity of the
Catholic Church, in opposition to the Donatists, who
set up another chair in opposition (altare contra altare)
to the Catholic Church.
Bellarmine 4 well observes, that ' Optatus followed
1 [Sect, i.]
2 [De Schismat. Donatist. Lib. n. c. 2. On this passage and
the context, see Mr. Palmer's ' Jurisdiction of the British Episco
pacy,' pp. 217, et seqq.]
3 De Prescript. Hseret. c. xxxvi.
4 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. n. c. xvi.J
CHAP. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR, 285
the doctrine of St Cyprian, who said, there is but one Cyprian.
Church, one chair,' &c. And out of St Cyprian him
self, his meaning therein is manifest to be no other
than a specifical, not numerical unity. He tells us
plainly in the same place 1 , 'that the other Apostles
were the same with Peter, equal in honour and power.'
He teacheth that 'the one bishopric is dispersed... con
sisting of the unanimous multitude of many Bishops 2 ;
that the bishopric is but one, a portion whereof is
wholly and fully held of every Bishop .' So 'there
ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholic Church 4 ,'
i. e. all Bishops ought to be one in faith and fellow
ship.
But is it not prodigious that men should build the
Pope's dominion upon the doctrine of Saint Cyprian
and Optatus ? The latter tells us roundly, that ' who
soever is without (the communion of) seven Churches
of Asia is an alien, in effect, calling the pope infidel 5 ;
and St Cyprian is well known to have always styled
pope Cornelius 'Brother 6 ;' to have severly censured
his successor Pope Stephen, contradicting his de
crees, opposing the Roman Councils, disclaiming the
1 [i. e. DC Unitate Ecel. 3.]
2 [Ep. LV. 16 : " Cum sit a Christo una ecclesia per totum
mundum in multa membra divisa, item episcopatus unus episcopo-
rum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus."]
3 [De Unitate Eccl. 4 ]
4 Epist. Lib. in. ep. xi. [al. XLVI. 2. For St. Cyprian's own
explanation, see Epist. XL. 4.]
5 [i. e. on the Romish hypothesis of unity. Dr. Hammond ('An
swer to Schism Disarmed,' Chap. v. sect x.) shews the true mean
ing of this language.]
6 [e. g. Epist. LV. The Roman clergy style Cyprian ' benedictus
papa.' ep. n.]
286 UNIVPmSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI.
Pope's power of appeals, and contemning- his excom
munications l .
A Council in Africk under St Cyprian, as another
wherein St Augustine sate, rejected and condemned
the jurisdiction of the Pope over them, as is fre
quently observed 2 ; and why do men endeavour to
blind the world with a few words of these great Fa
thers, contrary to the known language of their actions
and course of life ?
The sense of the words may be disputed, but
when it came to a trial, their deeds are known to
have shewed their mind beyond all dispute.
Ambrose. For instance 3 , Ambrose calls Pope Damasus 'Rec
tor of the Church ;' yet it is known that he would
never yield his senses to the law of Rome about
Easter for which the Church of Milan was called the
'Church of Ambrose' 670 years after his death, when
the clergy of Milan withstood the legate of Nicholas
II., saying, ' the Church of Ambrose had been always
free, and never yet subject to the laws of the Pope of
Rome;' as Baronius notes 4 .
Many other airy titles and courtly addresses, given
to the Pope in the writings of the Fathers, we have
observed before to carry some colour for a primacy
of order ; but no wise man can imagine that they are
an evidence or ground, much less a formal grant, of
1 [On these subjects, see the Rev. G. A. Poole's, ' Testimony of
St. Cyprian against Rome.']
2 [See above, pp. 76, 77.]
3 [This is one of Bellarmine's examples ; de Romano Pontif.
Lib. n. c. xvi.]
4 Ad an. 1059, XLVI. [See also Twysden's Hist. Vind. p. 14,
note 6, new ed.]
CHAP. XXL] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 287
universal dominion : seeing scarce one of them but is
in some of the Fathers (and usually by the same Fa
thers) given as well to the other Apostles, and to
other Bishops, as to Peter and the Pope ; and so
unfortunate is Bellarmine in his instances, that usually
the very same place carries its confutation.
It is strange, that so great a wit ' should so egre- Acacius.
giously bewray itself, to bring in Acacius, Bishop of
Constantinople, submitting, as it were, the Eastern
Church to the See of Rome, because in his Epistle to
Pope Simplicius he tells him, ' he hath the care of all
the Churches :' for what one Bishop of those times
could have been worse pitched upon for his purpose ?
Who ever opposed himself more fiercely against the
jurisdiction of the Pope than Acacius ? Who more
boldly rejected his commands than this Patriarch ? or
stands in greater opposition to Rome 2 in all history?
Yet Acacius must be the instance of an Eastern Pa
triarch's recognition of the see of Rome. Acacius,
phrenesi quadam abreptus (as Baronius 3 hath it) adver-
sus Romanum Pontificem violentus insurgit Acacius,
that received 4 those whom the Pope damned Aca
cius, excommunicated 5 by the Pope, and the very
head of the Eastern schism ; this is the man that must
witness the Pope's supremacy against himself, and his
own and his Church's famous cause : and this, by
saying in a letter to the Pope himself, that he had the
care of all Churches a title given to Saint Paul 6 in
the days of Peter to Athanasius 7 , in the time of
1 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. n. c. xv.]
2 [See above, p. 92.] 3 Ad an. 478, vi.
4 Ad an. 483, LXXVIII. 5 Ad an. 484. xvn.
G [2 Cor. xi. 28.] ? [Sec abovo. p. 94, note 3.]
288 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI.
Pope Julius to the Bishops of France 1 , in the time of
Pope Eleutherius and to Zecharias 2 an Archbishop,
by Pope John I. ; but conferred no monarchy upon
any of them.
I do not remember that I have yet mentioned the
titles of Summus Pontifex and Pontifex Maximus, which
are also said 3 to carry the Pope's supremacy in them ;
but it is impossible any wise man can think so.
Azorius 4 , a Jesuit, acknowledged these terms may
have a negative sense only, and Baroiiius 5 saith, they
do admit equality. In this sense, Pope Clemens 6
called Saint James ' Bishop of Bishops ;' and Pope
Leo ' styled all Bishops ' Summos Pontifices ;' and the
Bishops of the East write to the Patriarch of Constan
tinople under the title of ' Universal Patriarch,' and
call themselves 'chief priests 8 .'
1 [Epist. Decretal. Eleuther. apud Labb. Concil. Tom. 1.590, D.]
2 [Apud Labb. Concil. Tom. iv. 1605, B. For other examples of
this universal care, see Bingham, Book IT. Chap. v. sect, i.j
3 [Vid. Bellarmin. de Romano Pontif. Lib. u. c. xxxi].
4 [The reference is to his Instit. Moral. Part. n. Lib. iv. c. 4.
5 [Annal. Eccl. ad an. 397, L, where several instances are given.]
6 [In the title of the pseudo-epistle ' ad Jacobum Fratrem Do
mini.']
7 Ep. LXXXVIII. : [Opp. p. 159, col. 1. A; ed. Paris. 1639.]
8 Epist. ad Tarasium. [The title of this letter, written A.D. 787,
is as follows : To> d-yicorarw /cat /*aKapicoTaT<B Kvpia> KOL 8f<nroTr) Tapa-
tri'a), apxifiriaKOTTW KatvaTavTivovTrokfc^s <at olKovp.evi.K(a Trarpidpxr), of
rf)s ewas ap^ifpfls tv Kvpi'w ^at'petv. Apud Labb. Concil. Tom. vil.
169.]'
CHAP. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 289
SECTION X.
THE CONCLUSION TOUCHING THE FATHERS.
REASONS WHY NO MORE OF THEM A CHALLENGE TOUCHING
THEM NO CONSENT OF FATHERS IN THE POINT EVIDENT
IN GENERAL COUNCILS REASONS OF IT ROME ? S CONTRA
DICTION OF FAITH POPE'S SCHISM, PERJURY, &C.
I WAS almost tempted to have gone through with
a particular examination of all the titles and
phrases, which Bellarmine hath with too much vanity
gathered out of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin,
on behalf of the Pope's Supremacy ; but considering
they are most of them very frivolous and impertinent,
and that I conceive I have not omitted any one that
can be soberly thought material, and that all of them
have been frequently answered by learned Protestants,
and very few of them (so answered) thought fit to be
replied to by our adversaries, I thought it prudent
to excuse that very needless exercise, and I hope
none will account me blameworthy for it ; but if any
do so, I offer compensation by this humble challenge,
upon mature deliberation :
If any one or more places in any of the ancient A Chai-
Fathers, Greek or Latin, shall be chosen by any sober
adversary, and argued from, as evidence of the Pope's
Supremacy, as successor to Saint Peter, (God giving
me life and health,) I shall appear and undertake the
combat, with weapons extant in our English writers ;
though they may not think that one or two, or
more, passages out of single Fathers are sufficient to
bear away the cause in so great a point ; seeing they
themselves will not suffer the testimony of many of
19
290 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI.
the same Fathers to carry it for us in a point of the
least concernment.
In the mean time, I most confidently conclude,
that the Pope's Supremacy hath not the consent of
the primitive Fathers, as Bellarmine boasts, and that
whatever he would have them say, they did not
believe, and therefore not intend to say, that the
Pope was absolute Monarch of the Catholic Church ;
and consequently, that there was no such tradition in
the primitive ages, either before or during the time
of the first eight general Councils, is to me a demon
stration, evident for these reasons :
Reason i. The first eight general Councils, being all called
and convened by the authority of Emperors, stand
upon record as a notable monument of the former
ages of the Catholic Church, in prejudice to the papal
Monarch, as Saint Peter's successor, in those times.
"The first eight general Councils (saith Cusanus 1 ) were
gathered by authority of Emperors, and not of Popes ;
insomuch that Pope Leo was glad to entreat the Em
peror Theodosius the younger for the gathering of a
Council in Italy, and could not obtain it, (non obtinuii)."
Reason n. Every one of these Councils opposed this pre
tended Monarchy of the Pope ; the first, by stating
the limits of the Roman Diocese, as well as other
Patriarchates ; the second, by concluding the Eoman
Primacy not to be grounded upon Divine authority,
and setting up a Patriarch of Constantinople, against
the Pope's will ; the third, by inhibiting any Bishop
whatsoever to ordain Bishops within the Isle of Cy
prus ; the fourth, by advancing the Bishop of Con-
1 De Concordant. Cnthol. Lib. n. c. xxv.
OIIAP. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 291
stantinople to equal privileges with the Bishop of
Rome, notwithstanding the Pope's earnest opposition
against it ; the fifth, in condemning the sentence of
Pope Vigilius, although very vehement in the cause ;
the sixth and seventh, in condemning Pope Honorius
of heresy ; and the eighth and last, by imposing a
Canon upon the Church of Rome, and challenging
obedience thereunto 1 .
This must pass for the unquestionable sense of Reason m.
the Catholic Church in those ages, viz. for the space
of above 540 years together, from the first general
Council of Nice ; for our adversaries themselves style
every one of the general Councils the Catholic Church ;
and what was their belief was the faith of the whole
Church ; and what was their belief hath appeared,
viz., that the Pope had not absolute power over the
Church, jure Divino, an opinion abhorred by their
contrary sentences and practices.
It is observed by a learned man 2 , that the Fathers Reason iv.
which flourished in all those eight Councils were in
number 2280. How few friends had the Pope left to
equal and countermand them ! Or what authority had
they to do it ? Yea, name one eminent Father, either
Greek or Latin, that you count a friend to the Pope,
and in those ages, whose name we cannot shew you
in one of those Councils. If so, ' Hear the Church ;'
the judgment of single Fathers is not to be received,
against their joint sentences and acts in Councils : it
is your own Law. Now where is the argument for the
1 [This, however, was the Council in Trullo; see above, p. 230.]
2 [i.e. Bp. Morton, Grand Imposture, chap. viii. sect. 8; ed. Lond.
1628.]
19 2
292 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI.
Pope's authority from the Fathers ? They are not to
be believed against Councils; they spake their sense
in this very point, as you have heard, in the Councils ;
and in all the Councils rejected and condemned it.
Reason v. The belief of these eight general Councils is the
Rome's professed faith of the Roman Church 1 . Therefore,
tion of the Roman Church hath been involved and entangled,
at least ever since the Council of Trent, in the con
fusion and contradiction of faith ; and that in points
necessary to salvation.
For the Roman Church holds it necessary to salva
tion, to believe all the eight general Councils, as the
very faith of the Catholic Church ; and we have found
all these Councils have one way or other declared
plainly against the Pope's Supremacy ; and yet the
same Church holds it necessary to salvation to believe
the contrary, by the Council of Trent ; viz. that the
Pope is supreme Bishop and absolute Monarch of the
Catholic Church.
Rome's Some adversaries would deal more severely with
Heresy.
the Church of Rome upon this point, and charge her
with heresy in this, as well as in many other articles :
for there is a repugnancy in the Roman faith, that
seems to infer no less than heresy, in one way or
other. He that believes the article of the Pope's
Supremacy, denies, in effect, the first eight general
Councils, at least in that point ; and that is heresy.
And he that believes the Council of Trent, believes
the article of the Pope's Supremacy : therefore, he that
believes the Council of Trent does not believe the
first eight general Councils, and is guilty of heresy.
1 [See Gratian, Decret., Part I. Distinct, xvi. c. viii.J
CHAP. XXI. J UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 293
Again, he that believes that the Pope is not su
preme, denies the Council of Trent and the faith of
the present Church, and that is heresy : and he that
believes the first eight general Councils, believes that
the Pope is not Supreme ; therefore, he denies the
Council of Trent and the faith of the present Church,
and is an heretic, with a witness.
It is well if the argument conclude here, and infidelity.
extend not its consequences to the charge of infi
delity, as well as heresy, upon the present Roman
Church ; seeing this repugnancy in the Roman faith
seems to destroy it altogether : for
He that believes the Pope's Supremacy, in the
sense of the modern Church of Rome, denies the
faith of the ancient Church in that point ; and he
that believes it not, denies the faith of the present
Church ; and the present Church of Rome, that pro-
fesseth both, believes neither. These contrary faiths
put together, like two contrary salts, mutually destroy
one another. He that believes that, doth not believe
this ; he that believes this, doth not believe that.
Therefore he that professeth to believe both, doth
plainly profess he believes neither.
Load not others with the crimes of heresy and
infidelity, but ' pull the beams out of your own eye.'
But the charge falls heavier upon the head of the Pope's
Schism
present Roman Church : for not only heresy and infi- and Per
jury.
delity, but schism, and the foulest that ever the
Church groaned under, and such as the greatest wit
can hardly distinguish from apostacy, and all aggra
vated with the horrid crime of direct and self-con
demning perjury, fasten themselves to his Holiness's
chair, from the very constitution of the Papacy itself.
294 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI.
For the Pope, as such, professeth to believe and
sweareth to govern the Church according to the
Canons of the first eight general Councils ; yet openly
claims and professedly practiseth a power condemned
by them all.
Thus (quatenus Pope) he stands guilty of separa
tion from the ancient Church ; and, as head of a new
and strange Church, draws the body of his faction
after him into the same schism ; in flat contradiction
to the essential profession, both of the ancient and
present Church of Rome, and to that solemn oath, by
which also the Pope, as Pope, binds himself at his
inauguration to maintain and communicate with.
Hence, not only usurpation, innovations, and
tyranny, are the fruits of his pride, ambition, and
perjury, but if possible, the guilt is made more scarlet
by his cruelty to souls, intended by his formal curses
of excommunications, against all that own not his
usurped authority, viz. the primitive Churches, the
first eight general Councils, all the Fathers of the
Latin and Greek Churches for many hundred years,
the greater part of the present Catholic Church, and
even the apostles of Christ, and our Lord himself.
THE SUM OF THE WHOLE MATTER A TOUCH OF ANOTHER
TREATISE THE MATERIAL CAUSE OF SEPARATION.
TIP HE sum of our defence is this : If the Pope have
-L no right to govern the Church of England, as our
apostle or patriarch, or as infallible ; if his supremacy
over us was never grounded in, but ever renounced
by, our laws and customs, and the very constitution
of the kingdom ; if his supremacy be neither of civil,
ecclesiastical, or Divine right ; if it be disowned by
CHAP. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 295
the Scriptures and Fathers, and condemned by the
ancient Councils, the essential profession of the pre
sent Roman Church, and the solemn oaths of the
Bishops of Rome themselves : if, I say, all be cer
tainly so as hath appeared, what reason remains for
the necessity of the Church of England's readmission
of, or submission to, the papal authority, usurped
contrary to all this ? Or what reason is left to charge
us with Schism for rejecting it ?
But it remains to be shown, that as the claim of
the Pope's authority in England cannot be allowed,
so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of
obedience actually to it, from reasons inherent in the
usurpation itself, and the nature of many things re
quired by his laws.
This is the second branch of our defence, pro
posed at first to be the subject of another treatise.
For who can think it necessary to communicate
with error, heresy, schism, infidelity, and apostacy ;
to conspire in damning the primitive. Church, the
ancient Fathers, general Councils, and the better and
greater part of the Christian world at this day ? or
willingly at least, to return to the infinite super
stitions and idolatries, which we have escaped, and
from which our blessed ancestors (through the infinite
mercy and providence of God) wonderfully delivered
us?
Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided, if we
shall again submit ourselves, and enslave our nation
to the pretended powers and laws of Rome ; from
which, Libera nos, Domine.
THE POSTSCRIPT.
OBJECTIONS TOUCHING THE FIRST GENERAL
COUNCILS, AND OUR ARGUMENTS FROM
THEM, ANSWERED MORE FULLY.
SECTION I.
THE ARGUMENT FROM COUNCILS DRAWN UP, AND
CONCLUSIVE OF THE FATHERS, AND THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH.
IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the
ancient Councils two ways, as evidence and law.
As evidence, they give us the undoubted sense and
faith, both of the Catholic Church, and of single
Fathers in those times; and nothing can be said
against that. As law, we have plainly found that
none of them confer the supremacy pleaded for, but
every one of them in special Canons condemn it.
Now this latter is so great a proof of the former,
that it admits of no possible reply ; except circum
stances, on the bye, shall be set in opposition and
contradiction to the plain text in the body of the
law.
And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had
any such faith of the Pope's supremacy, during the
first General Councils, then neither did they believe
it from the beginning : for if it had been the faith of
the Church before, the Councils would not have
rejected it ; and indeed the very form and method of
POSTSCRIPT. 297
proceeding in those ancient Councils is sufficient evi
dence that it was not.
However, why is it not shown by some colour of
argument at least, that the Church did believe the
Pope's supremacy before the time of those Councils ?
Why do we not hear of some one single Father that
declared so much before the Council of Nice, or
rather before the Canons of the Apostles ? Or why
is there no notice taken of such a right, or so much
as pretence in the Pope, either by those Canons or
one single Father before that time ?
Indeed our authors 1 find very shrewd evidence of
the contrary.
" Why," saith Casaubon 2 " was Dionysius so utterly
silent, as to the universal head of the Church reigning
at Rome, if at that time there had been any such
monarch there ? especially, seeing he professedly
wrote of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and government."
The like is observable in Ignatius, the most Ignatius.
ancient martyr and bishop of Antioch, who in his
Epistles frequently sets forth the order ecclesiastical
and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions, but
never mentions the monarchy of St Peter or the
Roman Pope. The writing to the Church of Train's
' to obey Bishops as Apostles/ instanceth equally in
Timothy, St Paul's scholar, as in Anacletus, successor
to St Peter 3 .
1 [The facts in this 'Postscript' arc mainly derived from Bp.
Morton's 'Grand Imposture of the (now) Church of Rome,' chap
vii. viii.J
2 Exercitation. xvi. in Baron, ad an. 34. ccix.
3 [This passage does not occur in the genuine Epistle of Igna
tius. It is cited at length in Bishop Morton's ' Grand Imposture,'
p. 100; ed. Lond. 1628.]
298 POSTSCRIPT.
The prudence and fidelity of these two prime
Fathers are much stained, if there were then an uni
versal Bishop over the whole Church ; that professedly
writing of the Ecclesiastical Order, they should so
neglect him, as not to mention obedience due to
St. Paul, him ; and indeed of St Paul 1 himself, who gives us an
enumeration of the primitive ministry, on set purpose,
both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it,
viz. ' some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists,
some pastors and teachers,' and takes no notice of
the universal Bishop. But we hence conclude rather
there was no such thing.
For who would give an account of the government
of a city, army, or kingdom ; and say nothing of the
mayor, general, or prince ? This surpasseth the fancy
of prejudice itself.
Irenaus. Irenseus is too ancient for the infallible chair, and
therefore refers us, in the point of tradition, as well
to Polycarp in the east, as to Linus, bishop of Eome,
in the west 2 .
Tertuiiian. Tertullian adviseth to consult the mother-churches
immediately founded by the Apostles, and names
Ephesus and Corinth 3 as well as Rome, and Poly-
carpus ordained by St John, as well as Clemens
by Peter 4 . Upon which their own Rhenanus notes,
that ' Tertullian doth not confine the Catholic and
Apostolic Church to one place V for which freedom of
truth, the ' Index Expurgatorius' corrected him 6 , but
Tertullian is Tertullian still.
1 [Eph. iv. 11.] 2 [Adv. Hsercs.j Lib. 11. c. iii.
3 Do Prsescrip. Hseret. [c. xxxvi.] 4 [Ibid, c, xxxn.J
5 [Boatus Rhenanus, Argument, in loc. cd. Basil. 1521.]
6 [i.e. Index Expurgator. Belgic. p. 78.]
POSTSCRIPT. 299
These things cannot consist, either with their own
knowledge of an universal Bishop, or the Church's
at that time ; therefore the Church of Egypt held the
Catholic faith with the chief priests, naming Anatolius
of Constantinople, Basil of Antioch, Juvenal of Jeru
salem, as well as Leo, Bishop of Rome l . And ' it is
decreed (saith the Church 2 of Carthage) we consult
our brethren, Siricius (Bishop of Rome) and Simpli-
cianus ' (Bishop of Milan).
Hence, it follows, that the Church and the Fathers
before the Councils had no knowledge of the Pope's
supremacy, and we have a plain answer to all obscure
passages in those Fathers to the contrary.
Besides, whatever private opinion any of them
might seem to intimate on the Pope's behalf before,
it is certain it can have no authority against the sense
and sentences of General Councils, which soon after
determined against him, as hath appeared in every
one of them, in so express and indisputable terms, in
the very body of the Canons, that it is beyond all
possible hopes to support their cause from any cir
cumstantial argument touching those Councils. Yet
these also shall now be considered in their order.
SECTION II.
'OBJECTIONS TOUCHING THE COUNCIL OF NICE
ANSWERED.
LET us begin with the Council of Nice, consisting First G
of three hundred and eighteen Bishops, which is
1 Bitiius, inter Epist. Illustr. Person. Concil. [Tom. n.j p. 147.
2 Concil. Carthag. in. can. XLVIII.: [Labbo, Tom. 11. 1177, c.]
300 POSTSCRIPT.
found so plain in two special Canons 1 the one for
bidding appeals, and the other limiting the jurisdic
tion of the provinces according to custom against
the papal Supremacy, that one would think nothing
could be objected. But Bellarmine will say some
thing that was never said before.
objcc- He saith 2 , 'the Bishop of Alexandria should have
those provinces, because the Bishop of Rome was
accustomed to permit him so to do.'
Answer. We have given full answer to this before, but a
learned Prelate 3 of ours hath rendered it so senseless
and shameless a gloss, in so many and evident in
stances, that I cannot forbear to give the sum of what
he hath said, that it may further appear our greatest
adversaries are out of their wits, when they pretend a
fence against the Canons.
After the nonsense of it, he shews its impudence
against the sunshine light of story and grammar ;
because it is so evident, that the words ' because the
Bishop of Rome hath the same custom,' are words of
comparison betwixt Alexandria and Rome, in point
of ancient privilege, both from the words eTrcih] itai
and three editions, now entered into the body of the
Councils by their own Binius wherein the words are,
' because the Church of Rome hath the like custom.'
' Yet this were modesty, did they not know,' saith
he 4 , 'that the Council of Chalcedon did against the
will of the Pope advance the prerogative of Constan
tinople, upon this ground of custom.'
1 [See above, pp. 220, 221.J a [Dc Rom. Pontif. Lib. n. c. xiii.]
3 Bp. Morton, 'Grand Imposture/ pp. 130, et seqq. [Lond. 1628.]
4 [p. 132.]
POSTSCRIPT. 301
The matter is so plain, that their own Cardinal
Cusanus 1 concludes thus: "We see how much the
Bishop of Rome, by use and custom of subjectional
obedience, hath got at this day beyond the ancient
constitutions ;" speaking of this very Council.
Bellarmine saith 2 , 'the beginning of that Canon Objec
tion ii.
in the vulgar books is thus, Ecclesia Romana semper
kabet primatum, mos autem perduret.'
The answer is : it is shameful to prefer one vulgar Answer.
book before all other Greek or Latin copies, and
before the book of the Pope's Decrees, not in the
Canons set out at Paris, A.D. 1559, nor the editions
sent by two Patriarchs, on purpose to give satisfaction
in this cause, which Bellarmine himself acknowledg-
eth 3 . In none of all which the word ' Primacy ' is to
be found, and consequently is foisted into that vulgar
book. But what if it were ? The bare Primacy is
not disputed in the sense given of it by the Council of
Chalcedon 4 . ' It behoves that the Archbishop of Con
stantinople (new Rome) be dignified by the same Pri
macy of honour after Rome.'
SECTION III.
SECOND GENERAL COUNCIL OBJECTIONS TOUCHING
THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE ANSWERED.
N
EXT to the Council of Constantinople, being the Secortd GC-
second General, let us hear what is objected. JlCoun-
1 DC Concordant. Cathol. Lib. u. c. xii.
2 [Dc Romano Pontifice, Lib. n. c. xiii.]
3 [Ibid. The whole of this answer is from Bp. Morton, as above,
p. 134.] 4 [Quoted above, p. 35.]
302 POSTSCRIPT.
Objec- ' They say themselves,' saith Bellarmine, ' that they
were gathered by the mandate of Pope Damasus 1 .'
Answers. (i) What then? Suppose we should give the
Pope, as the head of unity and order, the honour of
convening general Councils, and of sitting as Presi
dent in them, what is this to the Supremacy of
government ? or what more than might be contained
in the Primacy, that is not now disputed ?
(2) But Bellarmine himself confesseth 2 , that those
words are not in the Epistle of the Council, as all
mandates used to be, but of certain Bishops that had
been at the Council.
(3) It is recorded 3 , that the mandate from the
Emperor gathered them together : the testimony will
have credit before the Cardinal.
(4) Indeed the Pope sent letters, in order to the
calling this Council, but far from mandatory ; neither
were they sent to the Eastern Bishops, to require, but
to the Emperor Theodosius 4 by way of request, for
the obtaining liberty to assemble a Synod. Did he
command the Emperor ? Why did not Pope Leo
afterwards command a general Council in Italy nearer
home, when he had intreated Theodosius for it with
much importunity, and could not obtain 5 ? The time
1 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. ir. c. xiii.]
2 [Recognitioncs, prefixed to his ' Disputations,' p. 5. c ; ed.
Colon. 1628.]
3 [See Bp. Morton, as above, chap. vm. sect. 3. Natalis
Alexander (according to Palmer's ' Treatise on the Church,' Partiv.
chap. ix. sect. 2.) proves that this council was assembled without
consulting Damasus ]
4 Vid. Theodor. Hist. Eccl. Lib. v. c. ix.
5 [Epist. Decretal, xxiv. : Opp. p. 114, col. 2. n: ed. Paris.
ins:.]
POSTSCRIPT. 303
was not ripe for the Pope's commands, either of
Emperors or Synods.
It is also said, that ' the Council acknowledged Objec
tion ii.
that the Church of Rome was the head, and they the
members, in their very first Epistle to Pope Damasus.'
(1) Bellarmine confesseth, this is not in their Answers.
Epistle, but the Epistles of the Bishops, as before.
(2) If they had thus complimented the Pope, it
could not be interpreted beyond the head of a Pri
mate, and their union with him in the same faith. It
is evident enough they intended nothing less than a
supremacy of power in that head, or subjection of
obedience in themselves as members.
(3) This is evident in the very inscription of the
Epistle, which was not to Damasus only, but jointly to
others ; thus l , ' Most honourable and reverend bre
thren and colleagues.' And the Epistle itself is
answerable : ' We declare ourselves to be your proper
members'; but how? 'That you reigning, we may
reign with you.'
(4) The sum is, there were at this time two
Councils, convened by the same Emperor Theodosius
both to one purpose, this at Constantinople, the other
at Rome. That at Rome was but a particular, the
other at Constantinople was ever esteemed a general
Council. Who now can imagine that the general was
subject to the particular, and in that sense, members ?
No, the particular Church of Rome then was not the
Catholic ; they humbly express their communion, ' We
are all Christ's, who is not divided by us ; by whose
grace we will preserve entire the body of the Church.'
i [Vid. Concil. ed Lahh. Tom. n. 959.]
304 POSTSCRIPT.
They did avy-^aipeiv (as their word was) their fellow-
members, which they styled crv\\iTovpyoi, 'their fel
low-workers.'
Objec- 'This second Canon against the Pope was never
received by the Church of Rome, because furtive
relatus^.'
Answer. This is beyond all colour; for the Bishops of Rome
opposed it as unfit, yet never said it was forged. Leo,
Gelasius, Gregory, all took it very ill, but no one said
it was false. The Pope's Legates also in the Council of
Chalcedon made mention of this Canon by way of oppo
sition, but yet never offered at its being surreptitious.
But that which is instar omnium in this evidence is
this ; the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, in
their letters to Pope Leo, say 2 that 'with mutual
consent they confirmed the Canon of one hundred
and fifty Bishops at Constantinople/ notwithstanding
that his Bishops and Legates did dissent therefrom.
Now what if a few histories do not mention this
Canon (which is all that remains to be said) ? So
crates 3 and Sozomen 4 do; and two positive witnesses
are better than twenty negative. Besides, though it
is much against the hair of Rome, yet it is so evident,
that Gratian 5 himself reports that Canon verbatim, as
acted in that Council.
1 [This is the objection of Binius from Baronius. Vid. Concil.
ed. Labb. Tom. n. 971, D.]
2 [Vid. Labbe, Tom. iv. 795, E ; and for a fuller reply to the
objection, Bp. Morton's 'Grand Imposture,' chap. vm. sect. 3.]
3 [Hist. Eccl. Lib. v. c. viii.]
4 [Hist. Eccl. Lib. vn. c. ix.]
5 [Decret. Part i. Distinct, xxn. c. ii. iii.]
POSTSCRIPT. 305
SECTION IV.
OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE THIRD GENERAL COUNCIL
AT EPHESUS ANSWERED.
TT is said by Bcllarmine 1 , 'that they confessed they Objection
deposed Nestorius, by the command of Pope
Coelestine.'
We answer, that command should appear in the Answers.
Pope's letters to them, but it doth not ; the style of
command was not then in use, for almost 200 years
after Pope Gregory abhors it 2 .
(2) The words intended are these 3 : Turn Eccle-
sice canonibus, turn epistola patris Ccelestini et collegce
nostri compulsi. They were compelled both by the
Canons and by his letters ; therefore they did it by
the Pope's command, an excellent consequence from
the part to the whole. Indeed they first shew, that
they were satisfied both by his words and letters that
he had deserved deposition ; and then acknowledge
they ought by the Canons, and no doubt would have
deposed him, as well as John of Antioch shortly after,
without the Pope's authority ; though they gave this
compliment to Coelestine, for his seasonable advice,
grounded upon the Canons and merits of the cause.
But -the Council,' say they 4 , 'durst not judge objection
John Bishop of Antioch ;' and that ' they reserved
him to the judgment of Pope Ccelestine.'
1 [Do Romano Pontif. Lib. n. c. xiii.j
2 Epist. Lib. vn. [Indict, i.], Ep. xxx.
:i ['AvayKiiius Kurenfixdevrfs diro re ru>v K.UVUVUV, mil (K rf/s firiffru-
Xrjs TOV dyieorurov irarpus r/^xwi/ m crv\\(iTOvpyov KfXewrtVou rov (niaKo-
TTOV rijs 'Po>/xma>f fKK\ij<Tias, K. r. \. Evaj-r. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. c. iv.J
4 [In Bp. Morton's Grand Imposture,' chap. viu. sect. 4.]
20
POSTSCRIPT.
Answer. Strange! Bellarmine hence (1) denies matter of
fact, mentioned in the very same paragraph. They
durst not depose this Patriarch,' when they tell the
Pope in terminis they had done it l : Se ilium prius
excommunicasse et omni potestate sacerdotali exuisse.
What is this but deposition ? (2) He hence concludes
a wonderful right, that the Pope is absolutely above a
general Council ; a conclusion 2 denied by their own
general Councils of Constance and Basle, ever dis
claimed by the Doctors of Paris as contrary to anti
quity, and which no Council since the beginning of
Christianity did expressly decree, as Dr Stapleton
himself confesseth ; and therefore flies to silence as
consent : Quamvis nullo decreto publico, tamen tacito
doctorum consensu definiti 3 , etc.
But all this is evidently against both the sense of
the Council declared in this point, and the reason of
the Canon itself.
(1) They sufficiently declared their sense in the
very Epistle alleged, where, speaking of the points
constituted by the Pope, " We" (say they 4 ) "have
judged them to stand firm ; wherefore we agree with
you in one sentence, and do hold them (meaning
Pelagius and others) to be deposed." So that instead
of the Pope's confirming acts of Councils, this Council
confirms the acts of the Pope, whom indeed they
plainly call their 'colleague and fellow- worker 5 .'
1 [. ..rfots avrovs a.Koivo>vijTovs Troir/cravTes (cat irepuXovres avroov
Trao-ai/ f^oixriav lepaTiKrjv, K. T. X. Apud Labb. Concil. Tom. III.
665, B.]
2 [See above, pp. 233, 234.]
8 De Doctrin. Princip. Lib. xnr. c. 15.
4 [Apud Labb. ubi supra, 665, E.] 5 [<rv\\(iTovpya>.]
POSTSCRIPT. 307
|
(2) In the Acts or Canons their reason and very
words 1 establishing the Cyprian privilege, (as hath
been shewn) they bound and determine the power
of Rome, as well as other Patriarchates ; and certainly
they therefore never intended to acknowledge the
absolute Monarchy of the Pope over themselves, by
reserving John of Antioch to Coelestine, after they had
deposed him ; they declare their own end plainly
enough, Ut illius temeritatem animi lenitate vinceremus,
that is, as you have it in Binius 8 , Coelestine might try
whether by any reason he could bring him to a better
mind, that so he might be received into favour again.'
SECTION V.
OBJECTIONS TOUCHING THE FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH.
SEVENTH, EIGHTH GENERAL COUNCILS; ESPECI
ALLY TOUCHING THE FOURTH GENERAL COUNCIL
OF CHALCEDON, ANSWEREDCONCLUSION.
Council styled the Pope 3 ' (Ecumenical Patri- Objection
A arch,' or Universal Bishop.
(1) The title was not given by the Council itself, Answers.
but by two deacons writing to the Council, and by
Paschasinus, the Pope's legate in the Council 4 .
1 [The decree may be seen in Labbe, Tom. in. 802.]
2 Tom. i. p. 806.
3 [Bellarmin. de Romano Pontifice, Lib. n. c. xiii. His assertion
is that this title occurs in Act. i. it. in. passim, which is very far
from the truth.]
4 [Apud Labb. Concil. Tom. iv. 94, c; 448, r. See also Bp.
Morton's 'Grand Imposture.' chap. xni. sect. 1.]
202
308 POSTSCRIPT.
(2) Though the Council did not question the
form of the title, yet no one can think that they
either intended to grant or acknowledge the Pope's
universal authority by such their silence : for it is
incredible that the same Council, which gave equal
privileges to Constantinople 1 , should give or acknow
ledge an universal jurisdiction to Rome over the
whole Church.
(3) But the words answer themselves, Universali
Archiepiscopo magnce, Romce, 'Universal Archbishop'
(not of the whole Church, but) ' of great Rome ; '
which grand restriction denies that universal power,
which they would argue from it. The style of the
Roman Emperor is ' universal Emperor of Rome,' and
thus is distinguished from the Emperor of Turkey
and all others ; and denieth him to be the Emperor
of the whole world.
Objection Saith Binius 2 , ' The title at first was the Bishop of
the Universal Church, because it is so read in the
Epistle of Leo, but was altered by some Greek scribe
in envy to the Church of Rome.'
Answer. It is likely that a private man could or durst alter
the style of a general Council, against the dignity of
the Pope, his legate present ; but it is more likely
that some Latin scribe hath added that inscription to
the Epistle of Pope Leo, in honour of the Church of
Rome ; as is confessed by Cusanus to have been done
to the Epistle of Anacletus 3 , and by Baronius to have
1 [See above, p. 66.]
2 Annot. in Concil. Chalcedon. Act. m. ex Baronio.
3 [This and the following facts are given on the authority of
Bp. Morton, 'Grand Imposture,' pp. 93, 94. Compare Comber's
POSTSCRIPT. 309
been done to the Epistle of Pope Boniface, and by
three other Popes themselves unto the Council of
Nice, viz. Zosimus, Boniface, and Ccelestinus. And
the rather, because, as was just now noted, this Coun
cil at the same time honoured the Bishop of Constan
tinople with equal privileges to the Bishop of Rome.
' Pope Leo opposed this decree of the Council, Objection
and disclaimed it 1 .'
No wonder ; but it seems general Councils were Answer.
not always of the Pope's mind ; and the Pope would
then have had a greater privilege than a general
Council ; and if that was a general Council (as they
themselves say it was) the controversy is ended : for
by their own confession, this general Council made a
decree against the Pope's pretences of superiority,
and therefore it did not intend, by the title of Bishop
of the whole Church, to acknowledge that superiority
which he pretended, and that Council of four hundred
Bishops denied him.
' This decree was not lawfully proceeded in, be- Objection
IV.
cause the legates of the Pope were absent 2 .'
The legates were there the next day, and ex- Answer.
cepted, and moved to have the acts of the day before
read. Aetius for the Council sheweth that the legates
knew what was done ; ' all was done canonically.'
Then the acts being read, the Pope's legates tell the
Council, that circumvention was used in making that
Canon of privileges, and that the Bishops were com-
' Roman Forgeries,' Part i. pp. 12, 13; Part in. pp. 248, 249: Part
III. pp. 35, et seqq.]
1 [Bcllannin. de Romano Ponlii'. Lib. 11. c. xviii.]
2 Bcllarm, do Romano Pontif. Lib. n, c. xxii.
310 POSTSCRIPT.
polled thereunto. The Synod with a loud voice cried
jointly, ' We were not compelled to subscribe.' After
every one severally protest, ' I did subscribe willingly
and freely ; ' and the acts are ratified and declared to
be just and valid; 'And wherein' (say they) 'we will
persist.' The legates are instant to have the act-
revoked, because the apostolical See is humbled or
abased ; thereto the Fathers unanimously answered,
' The whole Synod doth approve it.' This clear ac
count we have in Binius, in Condi. CJialced. Act. xvi. 1
Bellarmine saith, that the Pope approved* all the
decrees of this Council, which were de fide : and doth
not Bellarmine argue that the Pope's superiority is
jure Divino ? and the present Church of Rome hold
that his Supremacy is a point necessary to salvation ?
How comes it to pass that he would not approve this
decree ? Or how can they esteem this Council gene
ral and lawful, and swear to observe the decrees of it,
when it is found guilty of heresy in so great a point
as the Pope's Primacy ?
But to end with this, the very title itself of ' Bishop
of the Universal Church,' in the style of those ages,
signified certainly neither Supremacy nor Primacy :
'Universal Bishop of the Church' seemed a dangerous
title, importing universal power over it, and was there
fore so much abhorred by Pope Gregory. But the
title of ' Bishop of the Universal Church ' signifieth the
care of the whole Church, to which (as Origen 3 saith)
1 pp. 134, 137. [Apud Labb. Tom. iv. 795, ct scqq.]
2 [Ubi supra: . . ."sc Concilium illml approbasse, solum quantum
ad explicationem fidei."]
3 [This and the following instances arc taken from Bp. Morton's
'Grand Imposture.' chap. vi. sect. 6.]
POSTSCRIPT. 311
; every Bishop is called.' Therefore Aurelius, For-
tunatianus, Augustine, are called ' Bishops of the Uni
versal Church,' and many in the Greek Church had
the same honourable titles given them J ; which signi
fied either that they professed the Catholic faith, or,
as Bishops, had a general regard to the good of the
Catholic Church.
But your own Jesuit 2 confesseth, ' that Pelagius
and Gregory, both Popes, have borne witness that no
Bishop of Rome before them did ever use the style
of Universal Bishops.' However, Universal Patriarch
makes as great a sound as Universal Bishop ; yet
that title was given to John Bishop of Constantinople
by the Bishops of Syria 3 .
' The custody of the Vine (i. e. the whole Church) Objection
V.
the Council saith is committed to the Pope by God 4 .'
True, so that primitive Pope Eleutherius said to Answer -
the Bishops in France, ' the whole Catholic Church is
committed to you 5 .' St Paul also 'had the care of all
the Churches ; ' but that is high which Gregory Nazi-
an/en saith of Athanasius, ' that he having the presi-
dence of the Church of Alexandria, may be said
thereby to have the government of the whole Chris
tian world 6 .'
Now, saith a learned man, " we arc compelled to
ask with what conscience you could make such objec-
1 [See above, pp. 94 97.]
'* Azorius, [Instit. Moral. Part 11. Lib. n. cap. iv.j
3 [In a synodal Epistle, apud Labb. Com.-il. Tom. v. Ifi-j. n.J
4 [Bcllavmin. do Romano Poutil'. Lib. 11. c. xiii.]
"' [Quoted above, p. 28S.J
6 [Orat. XX). p. 392, c: Opp Pan,- !<>!! i
312 POSTSCRIPT.
tions, in good earnest, to busy your adversaries and
seduce your disciples withal, whereunto you your
selves could so easily make answer V
We find no further objection against the other
Councils worthy notice. Bellarmine argues the Pope's
Supremacy, because the Synod of Constantinople,
being the fifth general Council, complimented the
Pope as his obedient servants : Nos (inquit Presses)
apostolicam sedem sequimur et obedimus 2 , though this
very Council both opposed, accused, and condemned
the Pope for heresy; which could not possibly consist
with their acknowledgment of his Supremacy or In
fallibility.
The same is more evident in the sixth, seventh,
and eighth, general Councils, condemning the persons
and judgments of, and giving laws to, the Bishops of
Rome ; to which nothing material can be objected,
but what hath been more than answered.
Binius indeed, in his Tract, ' De Primatu Ecclesiw
Romance,' gives us the sayings of many ancient Popes
for the Supremacy pretended, especially in two points,
the power of appeals (challenged by Pope Anicetus,
Zephyrinus, Fabianus, Sixtus, and Symmachus), and
exemption of the first See from censure or judgment
by any other power, claimed by Pope Sylvester and
Gelasius. But these are testimonies of Popes them
selves in their own cause, and besides both these
points have been found so directly and industriously
1 Rj>. Morton, ['Grand Imposture,' ch;ij> \ m. iH'it. f> I
2 Apud Bcllaun <!< HotiKmo Pontif. Lib. n. o. xiii.
POSTSCRIPT. 313
determined otherwise by their own general Councils,
that further answer is needless 1 .
CONCLUSION.
objections being removed, the argument
J- from the Councils settles firm in its full strength ;
and seeing both the ancient Fathers and the Catholic
Church have left us their sense in the said Councils,
and the sense of the Councils is also the received and
professed faith of the present Church of Rome itself,
who can deny that the Catholic Church to this day
hath not only not granted or acknowledged, but even
most plainly condemned, the pretended Supremacy of
the Bishop of Rome : yea, who can doubt but our
argument against it is founded upon their own rock,
the very constitution of the Papacy itself, as before
hath appeared ?
Therefore the Pope's claim upon this plea, as well
as upon any or all the former, is found groundless,
and England's deliverance from his foreign jurisdic
tion just and honest as well as happy: which our good
God in His wise and merciful Providence ever con
tinue, preserve, and prosper ! Amen, Amen.
1 [Especially as these ' Decretal Epistles' were for the most part
fabrications of later times, and as such are rejected by Romish
historians; e.g. Fleury. They formed a seasonable basis for the
pretensions of Gregory VII. and Innocent III.]
[APPENDIX A.]
rri^HE peculiar position of English Romanists seemed to call
[_ -- for a fuller illustration than could have been conveniently
bestowed on it in the body of the work. Under this conviction the
Editor purposes in the following observations, first, to confirm the
Author's assertion at p. 11, and secondly, to direct the thoughts
of the younger student to the true state of our Anglo-Ro
manists. On looking around us, we find a body of men pro
fessing respect to ecclesiastical principles, who yet keep aloof
from the worship of the Church of England, and establish for
themselves other altars and provide other teachers. Now by the
canons of a general Council, it is declared highly criminal for
persons, even ' where the confession of a sound faith is pretended,
to make a schism and gather congregations in opposition to the
canonical bishops 1 .' It is moreover admitted by both parties in
the controversy that there cannot lawfully be two bishops in pos
session of the same diocese ; that if one be in canonical posses
sion, the other is guilty of irregularity and usurpation. The ques
tion, therefore, to be decided is this : Whether of the two rival
communions possesses canonical bishops, whether of the two is
chargeable with intrusion and schism ? At present we may neg
lect all considerations of doctrine ; for besides our retention of the
creeds, always professed by our forefathers, it is a fact well ascer
tained that the bishop, by whose interference the breach was
eventually made, had himself expressed a willingness to sanction
the Reformed services 2 . Accordingly our inquiry may be pursued
1 ['Ai(OeTiKoi<s <5e Aeyojutv, roik Tt TraXai T}V tKKAijcrt'as a7ro/oj/)i>xftWa,
KO.I Toi/s yueToi Tavra v(fi <ifj.u>v aj/aOt/uaTitrfieVTas' Trpos 6e TOUTOIS Kcti -rovs TIJV
Triiniv /Lev TIJI/ vytT) TrpomroiovfJLevow; o/toXoyeli/, d-Trocr^irravTuv Sf Kcti dvTi-
ffvvdyovTas TOIV xavoviKols i}p.lav e-Trto-KOTrois. Concil. Constant, i. A,i). Hill,
Can. vi.; apud Labb. Concil. Tom. u. 1)50, B.J
2 [See Sir Roger Twysdcn's 'Vindication,' pp. 11)8, et seqq. It is true that
our adversaries in more prosperous times have assumed a far different tone ;
but at the period we are considering, the Trent Creed had not (bund so hearty
a reception, nor could men see so strongly in what particulars we have vio
lated the Catholic faith. I
APPENDIX. 315
on the ordinary principles of Church discipline, the principles
which guided the early Christians in determining a like contro
versy. With them it was a first step to investigate the orders of
the two rival communions, to trace upwards the succession of
their bishops to apostles or apostolical men, and in case one party
could not prove unbroken descent from the original pastors of the
district, to give (cceteris paribus) a verdict to their adversaries.
The well-known language of Irenaeus is as applicable to com
munion as to doctrine ; indeed in his age the questions were made
almost identical. " Habemus annumerare qui ab apostolis instituti
sunt episcopi in ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos qui
uihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur'."
And in a similar spirit writes Tertullian : "Edant ergo origines
ecclesiarum suarum ; evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita
per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus
aliquem ex apostolis vcl apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis
perseveraverit, habuerit auctorem, et antecessorem 2 ." Let now
this test of apostolicity be applied in the case before us. The
hierarchy of our Church is in actual possession of the English
dioceses ; they claim to be successors and representatives of the
episcopacy, which flourished in England centuries before the Re
formation ; they challenge their adversaries to point out one single
particular by which their orders have been vitiated or their jurisdic
tion forfeited. The Anglo-Romanists, on the contrary, have no
pretension to this continuity : when they first gained a distinct exist
ence in England, they made no attempt to perpetuate episcopacy,
and thus tacitly admitted their irregular position. Once, indeed,
Parsons endeavoured to procure bishops 3 , A.D. 1580, but the
effort was abortive; and Black well was in 1598 nominated as
head of the Recusants with the title arch-priest 4 . In 1623, Dr.
Bishop came over to institute an episcopal government, but died
in the following year. In 1625, Dr. Richard Smith (as bishop of
Chalcedon) was appointed to preside over the Anglo-Romanists ;
but in 1629 he withdrew into France 5 . In 1685, the first vicar-
1 [Adv. Haeres. Lib. in. cap. 3.J
2 [De Praescriptione Hacret. c. xxxii.J
! [See Dodd's Church Hist. Vol. in. p. 47 ; Ticrney's note.]
1 [ Ibid. pp. 47, et seqq.]
h [On these subjects, sec 'The History ot the Decline and Fall of the
Roman
316 APPENDIX.
apostolic entered England, one of a disconnected band who are
described by one of their own disciples as " mere delegates,
stewards of the Roman bishop, amenable to his will, dependent
on his beck 1 ." As vicars-apostolic they have no English jurisdic
tion; as titular bishops in partibus infidelium, they have no
jurisdiction any where. Hence they are not properly bishops.
On this subject let us hear Dr. Milner (and surely the Romanists
can ask no more favourable witness than the author of ''The End
of Controversy'") : " In my first letter," he writes to Sir John
Throckmorton 2 , "I made a necessary and obvious distinction
between a perfect and an imperfect Church, between one that was
actually formed and another that was only in a state of formation,
in short, between an establishment and a mission. I shewed that
we were in the latter of these predicaments, having entirely lost
the succession of bishops at the Reformation" &c. &c. It is of
course easy enough to assert that the ipse-dixit of a foreign bishop
can give regularity to anything irregular, and can stultify the
whole practice of the Church ; but this assertion is to beg the
question at issue, and, after the arguments of the preceding Trea
tise, few Englishmen, we may hope, will grant it.
Thus much may suffice for the teachers of the Anglo-Roman
ists : let us next consider the history of the society which has
placed itself under their guidance. Whatever be the character of
persons who have come into this country with foreign orders,
claiming jurisdiction in dioceses already filled, the case of the
Romanists, as a body, will be ecclesiastically desperate, if we find
them gaining existence by voluntarily dividing the Church and
abandoning an older society of Christians which did not impose
sinful terms of communion. That these terms were not at first
considered sinful has been shewn in the preceding remarks ; and
the same truth is further illustrated by the conduct of the Anglo-
Romanists themselves. It will not be denied that the Reforma
tion, as to matters of faith, terminated in 1562, yet till 1570 there
was in no quarter any visible defection from the worship of the
Roman Catholic Religion in England, translated from the Italian of Grcgorio
Panzani, by the Rev. Joseph Ikrington' (a Romanist), Loml. li?13; pp. 1(8.
108, 130. The title of this book i* most significant . ;
1 [A pud Bering ton, p, 382.]
2 [Ecclesiastical Mrmonncv J>eir< -trd. p. I'.M ; Loud. 1/93.)
APPENDIX. 317
English Church ; all persons assembled at the parish sanctuaries
where their fathers had knelt for ages. Some few, it is probable,
took exception to the Prayer-Book, on the ground that it omitted
topics which they individually cherished : yet none at the impulse
of his private spirit proceeded to form a conventicle, none assumed
an attitude of hostility, until the llth year of Queen Elizabeth.
This is a point of very great importance ; for if once clearly
established, the Recusants are convicted of voluntary secession, of
disobedience to their canonical rulers, of 'bearing arms against the
Church, and resisting the appointment of God.'
Historical proofs that the Romanists went out
from among us.
ON this subject we shall select only a portion of the evidence
which is available. " For divers years/' writes Archbishop Bram-
hall, " in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, there was no
Recusant known in England; but even they, who were most
addicted to Roman opinions, yet frequented our churches and
public assemblies, and did join with us in the use of the same
prayers and Divine offices, without any scruple ; until they were
prohibited by a papal bull, merely for the interest of the Roman
court. This was the true beginning of the schism between us and
them. I never yet heard any of that party charge our Liturgy
with any error, except of omission; that it wanted something
which they would have inserted 1 ." The authority for the main
fact here stated is a contemporary pamphlet, entitled ' The Dis
closing of the Great Bull, that roared at my Lord Bishop's
GateJ &c., published at London, 1569. The same circumstances
are distinctly narrated by Bishop Andrewes, in the Tortura Torti,
pp. 130132, p. 142, ed. Lond. 1G09, by Camden, Annales
Elizabeth. A.D. 1570, p. 186, cd. Lugdun. Batav. 1G25, by Sir
Humfrey Lynde, Via Tula, sect. iv. Coke, in his Charge at
Norwich, A.D. 1607, declared that at first 'none of the papists
did refuse to come to our church, and yield their formal obedience
to the laws established. And thus they continued, not any one
refusing to come to our churches during the first ten years of her
1 [Just Vindication, Part i., Disc, ii ; Works, Vol. i. p. 248; ed. Oxf.
1842 ]
318 APPENDIX.
Majesty's government. And in the beginning of the eleventh year
of her reign, Cornwallis, Bedingfield, and Silyarde, were the first
Recusants, they absolutely refusing to come to onr churches ; and
until they in that sort began, the name of Recusant was never
heard of amongst us.' In addition to this passage, Mr. Palmer
(Treatise on the Church, Vol. i., pp. 348, 349) adduces the in
structions of Queen Elizabeth to Walsingham, and other docu
mentary evidence, establishing the same position. Similar testi
mony is borne by a " Relatione del presente Stato d' Inghilterru,
cavata da una letlera scritta di Londra ;" in Roma, 1590. After
referring to the recent fortunes of the Romanists, the writer goes
on to tell us, " Allora tutti andavano communemente alle sina-
goghe degli eretici et alle prediche loro menandovi li figli et
famiglie," etc. etc. This narrative was perused by Ranke, w T ho gives
an extract from it in his 'History of the Popes,' Vol. n. p. 88,
Engl. Trans. It agrees entirely with another passage in Riba-
deneira, de Schismate, quoted by Hallam, Constitut. History,
Vol. i. p. 118. Further proof, if necessary, may be found in
Garnet 1 , and in Parsons 2 , although the latter is somewhat loath
to make the admission. As late in the reign of Elizabeth as the
year 1578, a virulent tract was written by Gregory Martin,
' shewing that all Catholics ought to abstain from heretical con
venticles :' in other words, witnessing to the difficulty with which
the Romanizing portion of the Church were detached from its
communion and worship.
On the whole, therefore, we shall not scruple to conclude with
Barrow 3 , that " the Recusants in England are no less schismatics
than any other separatists. They are indeed somewhat worse ;
for most others do only forbear communion; these do rudely
condemn the Church to which they owe obedience, yea, strive to
destroy it : they are the most desperate rebels against it."]
1 [See State Papers, Vol. i. p. 249; quoted by Mr. Palmer, ubi supra.J
2 [Answer to the Fifth Part of Coke's Reports, p. 371.]
3 [Unity of the Church; Works, Vol. r. p. 783; ed. 171.J
A SERIOUS ALARM
TO ALL SORTS OF ENGLISH MEN AGAINST POPERY,
FROM SENSE AND CONSCIENCE, THEIR OATHS
AND THEIR INTEREST.
1. rpHE Kings of England seem bound, not only by
-*- their title, but in conscience of their ministry
under God, to defend the faith and the Church of
Christ within their dominions, against corruption and
invasion, and therefore against Popery.
They are also bound in honour, interest, and
fidelity, to preserve the inheritance and rights of the
Crown, and to derive them entire to their heirs and
successors ; and therefore to keep out the Papal
authority.
And lastly, it is said they are bound by their
oaths at their coronation, and by the laws of nature
and government, to maintain the liberties and cus
toms of their people, and to govern them according
to the laws of the realm ; and consequently not to
admit the foreign jurisdiction of the Pope, in pre
judice of our ancient constitution, our common and
ecclesiastical laws, our natural and legal liberties and
properties.
2. The nobility of England have anciently held
themselves bound, not only in honour, but by their
oaths, to preserve, together with the King, the terri
tories and honours of the King most faithfully, and to
defend them against enemies and foreigners ; mean-
320 A SERIOUS ALARM
ing especially the Pope of Rome. It is expressed
more fully in their letter to the Pope himself, in
Edward the First's reign, to defend the inheritance
and prerogative of the Crown, the state of the realm,
the liberties, customs, and laws of their progenitors,
against all foreign usurpation, toto posse, totis viribus,
' to the utmost of their power, and with all their
might ': adding, ;< We do not permit, or in the
least will permit, sicut nee possumus nee debemus,
though our Sovereign Lord the King do, or in the
least wise attempt to do, any of the premises, (viz.
owning the authority of the Pope, by his answer
touching his right to Scotland,) so strange, so unlaw
ful, prejudicial, and otherwise unheard of, though the
King would himself 1 ."
See that famous letter sent to the Pope, the 29th
of Edward I., taken out of Corpus Christi College
Library, and printed this year at Oxford, the reading
of which gave the occasion of these meditations.
3. It appears further, in the sheet where you have
that letter, that the Commons in Parliament have
heretofore held themselves bound to resist the inva
sion and attempts of the Pope upon England, though
the King and the Peers should connive at them ; their
words are resolute : "Si Dominus Rex et Regni majores
hoc vellent (meaning Bishop Ademer's revocation from
banishment upon the Pope's order) communitas tamen
1 ["Nee etiam permittimus, aut aliquatenus permittemus sicut
nee possumus, nee debemus, prcemissa tain insolita, indebita, prseju-
dicialia, et alias inaudita, prselibatum dominuin nostrum rogem,
etiamsi vellet facerc, sou quomodolibet attemptare." See the letter
in Rymer's "Fcedera," Vol. i. Pars H. p. 927, ed. Loud. 1816.]
AGAINST POPERY. 321
ipsius ingressum in Any Ham nullatenus sustineret." This
is said to be recorded about the 44th of Henry III.
4. It is there observed also, that upon the con
quest, William the Conqueror made all the freeholders
of England to become sworn brethren, sworn to de
fend the monarchy with their persons and estates to
the utmost of their ability, and manfully to preserve
it : so that the whole body of the people, as well as the
Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, stood
anciently bound by their oath to defend their King
and their country against invasion and usurpation.
5. The present constitution of this kingdom is
yet a stronger bulwark against Popery. Heretofore
indeed the papal pretensions were checked, some
times in temporal, sometimes in spiritual concerns
and instances ; but upon the Reformation, the Pope's
Supremacy was altogether and at once rejected, and
thrown out of England ; and the consequence is, an
universal standing obligation upon the whole king
dom, by statutes, customs, and most solemn oaths, to
defend our monarchy, our Church, our country, and
our posterity, against those incroachments and that
thraldom, from which we were then so wonderfully
delivered, and for this hundred years have been so
miraculously preserved, blessed be God !
Accordingly in our present laws, both the tem
poral and ecclesiastical Supremacy is declared to be
inherent in the Crown, and our Kings are sworn to
maintain and govern by those laws : and I doubt not
but all ministers of the Church, and all ministers of
state, and of law and war, all mayors and officers in
cities and towns corporate, &c., together with all the
21
322 A SERIOUS ALARM
sheriffs and other officers in their several counties ;
and even all that have received either trust or power
from his Majesty within the kingdom ; all these, I
say, I suppose are SAVorn to defend the King's Supre
macy as it is inconsistent with, and in flat opposition
to, Popery.
In the Oath of Allegiance, we swear to bear true
allegiance to the King, and to defend him against
all conspiracies and attempts which shall be made
against his person and Crown, to the utmost of em
power ; meaning especially the conspiracies and at
tempts of Papists, as is plain by that which follows in
that oath, and yet more plain by the Oath of Supremacy.
In which oath we swear, that the King is the only
supreme governor in this realm, as well in all spiritual
things and causes, as temporal ; and that no foreign
prince or prelate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdic
tion ecclesiastical within this realm ; and that we do
abhor and renounce all such. We swear also, that we
will bear faith and true allegiance to the King, and
to our power assist and defend all jurisdictions, viz.
ecclesiastical as well as temporal, granted or belong
ing to the King's Highness.
6. Now next to oaths, nothing can be thought to
oblige us more than interest. But if neither oaths
nor interest, neither conscience nor nature, neither
religion nor self-preservation, can provoke us to our
own defence, what remains but a certain fearful ex
pectation of judgment to devour a perjured and sense
less generation ?
If either our joint or several interests be con
siderable, how are we all concerned ?
AGAINST POPERY. 323
(1) Is there any among us that care for nothing
but liberty and money ? They should resist Popery,
which would many ways deprive them of both.
(2) But if the knowledge of the truth, if the
canon of life in the holy Scriptures, if our prayers in
our own tongue, if the simplicity of the Gospel, the
purity of worship and the integrity of Sacraments,
be things valuable and dear to Christians, let them
abhor Popery.
(3) If the ancient privileges of the British Church,
the independency of her government upon foreign
jurisdiction ; if their legal incumbencies, their eccle
siastical dignities ; if their opportunities and capa
cities of saving souls in the continuance of their
ministries; if their judgment of discretion touching
their doctrine and administrations ; their judgment of
faith, reason, and sense, touching the Eucharist ; if
exemption from unreasonable impositions of strange
doctrines, Romish customs, groundless traditions, and
treasonable oaths ; and lastly, if freedom from spiritual
tyranny and bloody inquisitions, if all these be of
consequence to clergymen, let them oppose Popery.
(4) If our judges and their several courts of
judicature would preserve their legal proceedings,
and judgments and decrees; if they would not be
controlled and superseded by bulls, sentences, and
decrees from the Pope, and appeals to Rome, let
them never yield to Popery.
(5) If the famous nobility and gentry of England
would appear like themselves and their heroic ances
tors, in the defence of the rights of their country, the
laws and customs of the land, the wealth of the peo-
21 2
324 A SERIOUS ALARM
pie, the liberties of the Church, the empire of Britain,
and the grandeur of their King, or indeed their own
honour and estates in a great measure, let them
never endure the re-admission of Popery.
(6) Yea, let our great ministers of state, and of
law, and of war, consider that they stand not firm
enough in their high and envied places, if the Roman
force breaks in upon us ; and remember that had the
late bloody and barbarous design taken effect 1 , one
consequence of it was, to put their places into other
hands ; and therefore in this capacity, as well as many
other, they have 110 reason to be friends to Popery.
(7) As for his most excellent Majesty, no suspi
cion either of inclination to, or want of due vigilance
against, Popery, can fasten upon him ; and may he
long live in the enjoyment and under a worthy sense
of the royalties of monarchy, and the honour and
exercise of his natural and legal supremacy, in all
causes and over all persons within his dominions, both
civil and ecclesiastical his paternal inheritance of
empire ; and at last leave it entirely to his heirs and
successors upon earth, for a more glorious crown in
heaven. And in the mean time, may he defend the
faith of Christ, his own prerogative, the rights, pri
vileges, and liberties, and estates of his people, and the
defensive laws and customs of his Hoyal progenitors ;
and therefore may he ever manage his government,
both with power, care, and caution, in opposition to
the force, and detection and destruction of the hellish
arts and traitorous designs and attempts of Popery.
1 [An allusion to the pretended conspiracy of the French, &c.
revealed by Titus Gates, A.D. 1678.]
AGAINST POPERY. 325
(8) I conclude, that if the precious things already
mentioned, and many more, be in evident danger with
the return of Popery, let us again consider our oaths
as well as our interest, and that we have the bond of
God upon our souls ; and, as the Conqueror's words
are, we are jurati fratres, we are sworn to God, our
King and country, to preserve and defend the things
so endangered, against all foreign invasion and usurp
ation, i. e. against Popery. Accordingly, may our
excellent King, and his councils and ministers ; may
the Peers of the realm and the Commons in parlia
ment ; may the nobility and gentry, may the judges
and lawyers, may the cities and the country, the
Church and state, and all ranks and degrees of men
amongst us ; may we all, under a just sense, both of
our interest and our oaths, may we all as one man,
with one heart, stand up resolved by all means pos
sible to keep out Popery, and to subvert all grounds
of fear of its return upon England for ever. Amen,
Amen.
oe KCU ap^ovTa et<K\r]crias e/caarjjs TroXews
TWV ev TY\ 7ro\ei crwyKpiTeov. Origen. contra
Celsum, Lib. in. [p. 129 ; ed. Cantab. 1658.]
"It is fit that the governor of the Church of each
city should correspond to the governor of those which
are in the city."
" Prcesumi malam fidem ex antiquiore adversarii
possessione.""
" Ad transmarina Concilia qui putaverit appellan-
dum, a nu Ho intra Africam in communionem recipiatur."
Concil. Milevitan. [Can. xxn. ; apud Labb. Tom. n.,
1542. 1543.]
THE OATHS
OF
ALLEGIANCE AND SUPREMACY.
THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
I A. B., do truly and sincerely acknowledge, pro
fess, testify, and declare in my conscience before
God and the world, that our Sovereign Lord King-
Charles is lawful and rightful King of this realm, and
of all other his Majesty's dominions and countries :
and that the Pope, neither of himself, nor by any
authority of the Church or See of Rome, or by any
other means with any other, hath any power or autho
rity to depose the King, or to dispose any of his
Majesty's kingdoms or dominions, or to authorize any
foreign prince to invade or annoy him or his coun
tries, or to discharge any of his subjects of their alle
giance and obedience to his Majesty, or to give licence
or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumults,
or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesty's royal
person, state or government, or to any of his Majesty's
subjects within his Majesty's dominions.
Also I do swear from my heart, that notwithstand
ing any declaration or sentence of excommunication
or deprivation made or granted, or to be made or
granted by the Pope or his successors, or by any
authority derived or pretended to be derived from
him or his See, against the said King, his heirs or
successors, or any absolution of the said subjects
THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. 327
from their obedience ; I will bear faith and true alle
giance to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, and
him and them will defend to the uttermost of my
power, against all conspiracies and attempts what
soever, which shall be made against his or their per
sons, their crown and dignity, by reason or colour of
any such sentence or declaration, or otherwise ; and
will do my best endeavour to disclose and make
known unto his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all
treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall
know or hear of, to be against him or any of them.
And I do further swear, that I do from my heart
abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical,
this damnable doctrine and position, that princes
which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope,
may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or
any other whatsoever.
And I do believe, and in conscience am resolved,
that neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever,
hath power to absolve me of this oath, or any part
thereof, which I acknowledge by good and full autho
rity to be lawfully administered unto me, and do
renounce all pardons and dispensations to the con
trary. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely
acknowledge, and swear according to these express
words by me spoken, and according to the plain and
common sense and understanding of the same words,
without any equivocation or mental evasion, or secret
reservation whatsoever. And I do make this recog
nition and acknowledgment heartily, willingly, and
truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me
(Jod, c.
328
THE OATH OF SUPREMACY.
I A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my con
science, that the King's Highness is the only
supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his
Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all
spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as tem
poral : and that no foreign prince, person, prelate,
state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any juris
diction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm : and there
fore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign
jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities,
and do promise from henceforth I shall bear faith
and true allegiance to the King's Highness, his heirs
and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist
and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, pre-eminences,
and authorities granted or belonging to the King's
Highness, his heirs and successors, or united and
annexed to the imperial Crown of this realm. So
help me God, and by the contents of this book.
[INDEX.
A. C. (i.e. Fisher against Archbp.
Laud), 87, 100.
ACACIUS (patriarch of Constantino
ple), 92, 287.
ADRIAN VI. (bishop of Rome), 235.
AFRICAN CHURCH, canons of, con
trary to the papal supremacy,
235237.
AGATHO (bishop of Rome) calls St.
Peter and St. Paul K opv<j>a.Toi, 78 ;
his submission to the emperor,
102.
ALEXANDER II. (King of Scotland)
repulses the papal legate, 59.
ALFRED (King of Northumberland),
his conduct respecting Wilfrid, 57.
ANTIOCH, Council of, (see Council).
APOSTLES, equality of, 257, 259.
APPEALS, none from a patriarch or
primate, 60, 105; proceedings at
Sardica concerning, 63 ; constitu
tions of Clarendon respecting, 65 ;
prohibited alike to bishops and
inferior clergy, 105 107 ; to
Rome, how forbidden by Henry
VIII., 122; senses of the word
'appeal,' 124 ; case of Wilfrid, 56,
57; of Anselm, 125 127; when
first permitted, 125 ; complaint of
Paschalis I. respecting, 129 ; again
forbidden, 130 ; clause in Magna
Charta respecting, 132 ; complaint
of the kingdom, 132 ; prsemunirc,
penalty of, 133, 140; interrupted
continually, 134.
AUGUSTINE, St. (of Hippo), judgment
of the pope's power, 76, 77, 105.
AUGUSTINE (of Canterbury), his en
tertainment in England, 45, 46 ; his
alleged connexion with the Bangor
massacre, 46 ; the pall granted to,
54 ; was placed in Canterbury by
the king, 115, 116.
A.vTOKe(pa\oi (independent primates),
36.
BARNES (Father), his opinion re
specting the Britannic Church,
182.
BARONIUS, on the pope's confirma
tion of elections, 72, 73, 76.
BASLE, Council of, (see Council).
BEAUFORT, HENRY, (bishop of Win
chester), proceedings respecting,
133, 140.
BONIFACE I. (bishop of Rome), letter
on appeals, 106, 108.
BONIFACE III. (bishop of Rome),
assumes the title ' Universal bi
shop,' 39.
BONIFACE VIII. (bishop of Rome),
trial respecting a Bull of, 156.
BRITISH CHURCH (see Church of
England).
BULLS (papal), of no force without
the King's consent, 117; suits for
prohibited, 122; trial respecting,
156, 157 ; rejected, 166, 167-
BYZACIUM, primate of, proceedings
respecting, 85.
330
INDEX.
CAERLEON, archbp. of, independent,
36, 45.
CANONS APOSTOLICAL, quoted, 34, GO,
105, 219, 220 ; question respect
ing, 218, 219.
CANTERBURY, archbp. of, originally
not subject to the pope, 62 ; him
self called ' pope/ 83, 135.
CARLISLE, statute of, on patronage,
164.
CARTHAGE, Council of, (see Council).
CATHOLIC CHURCH, (see Church).
CATHOLIC FAITH, 8, 9.
CHALCEDON, bishop of, (i. e. Richard
Smith) 10, etc.
CHALCEDON, Council of, (see Coun
cil).
CHARLES the Great, exercised autho
rity in sacris, 215.
CHARTA, MAGNA, clause respecting
appeals, 131 ; when left out, 132 ;
objections concerning, 142.
CHURCH CATHOLIC, 3, 6, 10, 12, 13,
14, 15, 17 ; Christ the ' Head' of
it, 88 ; whether governed by an
earthly monarch, 246, et seqq.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND, doctrine of,
8 ; did not divide in or from the
Catholic, 17 ; has the same faith
as always, 18; same sacraments
and discipline, 18 ; when founded,
30 ; not in the Roman patriarchate,
38, 39; its Reformation, 43; its
bishops consecrated without the
pope, 51, 52 ; sent bishops to Aries
and other synods, 55 ; what coun
cils it received, 65 ; questions in,
how settled, 135 ; convocations of,
145 ; its dispensing power, 155 ;
patronage of, in the King, 160,
]64.
CHURCH ORIENTAL, 33, 72, 73 ; never
admitted the papal supremacy,
237, 238.
CHURCH of ROME, (see Roman Church
and Bishop).
CLARENDON, constitution of, respect
ing appeals, 65, 128, 130 ; renewal
of, 130 ; respecting patronage, 164.
C(ELESTiNE (bishop of Rome), re
specting appeals, 61 ; letter to,
from the African bishops, 109, 110,
111 ; respecting St. Augustine, 112.
COKE, on different papal claims, 133,
140, 157, 158, 165, 166, 167.
CONSTANCE, Council of, (see Coun
cil).
CONSTANTINE, Donation of, a forgery,
207.
CONSTANTINOPLE, Council of, (see
Council).
CONVERSION, plea of, for jurisdiction,
29 et seqq.
CONVOCATIONS, assembled by King's
writ, 145.
COUNCIL of ANTIOCH, A.D. 341, ex
cluded appeals, 236.
_of BASLE, A.D. 1431, de
clares against the pope, 234 ; re
ceived in England, 244.
of CARTHAGE, A. D. 419, on
appeals, 108.
of CHALCEDON, A.D. 451, on
the equality of Rome and Constan
tinople, 35, 66; on appeals, 65;
confirms the Council of Constanti
nople respecting the privileges of
' New Rome,' 66 ; whether it offer
ed to the pope the title ' Universal
Patriarch,' 97, 98 ; no witness for
papal supremacy, 225, 226 ; objec
tions answered, 307 311.
INDEX.
331
Coi NOIL of CONSTANCE, A.D. 1414,
against papal supremacy, 233;
received in England, 244.
of CONSTANTINOPLE, A. it.
381 , on the equality of the Roman
and Constantinopolitan patriarchs,
66 : knew nothing of papal supre
macy, 222, 223; objections an
swered, 302, 303.
of CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D.
553, condemned pope Vigilius, 229.
of CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D.
680, condemned pope Honorius as
a heretic, 230.
of CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D.
869, no witness for papal supre
macy, 231.
. of EPHESUS, A.D. 431, for
bade additions to the faith, 18;
canon of, against usurpation, 39,
114; no witness for papal supre
macy, 223, 224; objections an
swered, 305307.
of FLORENCE, A.D. 1439,
referred to, 237.
of MILEVI, A. D. 416, on
appeals, 60, 61, 105, 107.
of NIC;EA or NICE, A. D.
325, respecting patriarchal sees,
34 36 ; occasion of the Canon,
36 ; Romish objections and answer,
3638; Canon on appeals, 60,
105 ; only twenty Canons of, 69 ;
Arabic Canons forged, 68 71;
knew nothing of papal supremacy,
220, 221 ; objections answered,
300.
of SARDICA, A.D. 347, on
appeals, 63; no general Council,
64 ; not received in England, 65 ;
further discussion respecting, 239
ft sei|<|.
COUNCIL of TRENT, its doctrines, 8 ;
never received here, 243.
CYPRIAN (St.), confirmed the bishop
of Rome's consecration, 73; with
a Council, censures the bishop of
Rome, 76 ; on the one episcopate,
93 ; his universal care, 94 ; on the
equality of the apostles, 254.
CYPRIAN PRIVILEGE, decree respect
ing, 39, 72.
CYRIL (patriarch of Alexandria) ex
communicated, 92.
DIONOTH (abbot of Bangor), his asser
tion of independence, 45; objec
tions respecting, 48, 50.
DISCIPLINE, ancient, remarks con
cerning, 91, 92.
DISPENSATIONS, papal, not ancient,
154 ; question repecting, 156 ;
granted by the English Church,
155.
DUNSTAN, on papal dispensations,
155.
EASTERN CHURCH, (see Church Ori
ental).
EDWARD (the Confessor), styled
'Vicar of Christ,' 103.
EDWARD III., statutes of, against
appeals, 128, 129, 140.
ELEUTHERIUS (bishop of Rome) re
ferred to, 30, 31, 32, 103.
EMPEROR, exercise of power in mat
ters ecclesiastical, 73, 77, 82, 85,
102, 212, 214, 215; instances of
power over popes, 103, 104, 212,
213; last appealed to, 134.
EPHESUS, Council of, (see Council}.
EXCOMMUNICATION, its nature, !'l, !'^
332
INDEX.
FATHERS, primitive, knew nothing
of papal supremacy, 297 2D9.
FELIX (bishop of Rome), his name
expunged from the diptychs, 92.
FIRST-FRUITS, history of, 172, et
seqq.
FLAVIANUS, (patriarch of Antioch),
opposed by three Roman bishops,
73.
FLORENCE, Council of, (see Council).
GARDINER, denied the pope's supre
macy, 234.
GEOFFREY (archbp. of York) forbade
appeals to Rome, 130.
GOVERNMENT, a bond of ecclesiastical
communion, 12.
GRAVAMINA ANGLLE, what, 132.
GREGORY I. (bishop of Rome), ex
tracts from respecting the Univer
sal Pastorship, 39, 54, 64, 67 ; his
respect for the Canons, 83, 86, 87 ;
on the Council of Chalcedon, 97 ;
instance of his pretensions, 101 ;
injunctions to Augustine, 116; re
specting the pall, 168.
GREGORY (bishop of Ostium), his
confession, 141.
HENRY I. (King of England), pro
hibition of appeals, 127 ; supposed
law in favour of, 129 ; his conduct
respecting investitures, 161.
HENRY VIII. (King of England),
what powers and perquisites he
denied the pope, 118, 122, 153,
169, 170; statement of the ques
tion between them, 120, 121.
HILARY, (bishop of Poictiers) ana
thematizes pope Liberius, 92 ; re
specting St. Peter, 252, 255.
HONORIUS (bishop of Rome) anathe
matized as a Monothelite, 92.
H. T. (i. e. Henry Turbervill), 47-
INFALLIBILITY, papal, argument re
specting, 183; not proved by
Scripture, 185 193, nor by tradi
tion, 194200, nor by reason, 201
205.
INNOCENT III. (bishop of Rome), his
complaint to Richard I., 131.
INNOCENT IV. (bishop of Rome), his
exactions, 177.
INVESTITURES, controversy respect
ing, 160 et seqq.
IREN^EUS, on the 'principality' of
the Roman Church, 99, 100.
JOHN (King of England), his grant
to the pope, 209, 210.
JOHN (patriarch of Constantinople),
how censured by Gregory, 80, 88.
JUSTINIAN (the emperor), how he
favoured the pope, 211, 212 ; his
authority in sacris, 212 ; his sanc
tion of the Canons, 217.
JUSTINIANA PRIMA, account of, 214.
KINGS of ENGLAND, their authority
in sacris, 145 et seqq. ; Canons
confirmed by them, 146; their
laws referred to, 147, 148; their
power neither by the pope's grant
nor permission, 149, 150; their
authority in dispensations, 154,
155 ; in investitures, 160 165.
LEGATES, papal, refused admission
into Scotland, 59 ; had no autho
rity in England without the King's
consent, 117 ; formal inquiry re
specting, 134 et seqq.; at first
mere messengers, 140; rejection of,
justified, 141.
INDEX.
333
LEO I. (bishop of Rome), his subjec
tion to the emperor, 102.
LIBERIUS (bishop of Rome) anathe
matized as an Arian, 92.
Lucius (King), mention of, 31, 53,
103.
MARY (Queen of England), how she
restored the papal usurpation, 123 ;
her conduct respecting Peto, 143.
MELETIUS, his irregularity, 36.
MORRIS (abbot), case of, 16G, 167.
NILUS (archbp. of Thessalonica), on
the Nicene Canon, 37, 38.
NON-OBSTANTE, papal, 140, 156.
OATH, imposed by the pope, 162;
how enlarged, 163.
PALL, from Rome, not essential, 168.
PALLADIUS, his mission, 53.
PASCHALIS I. (bishop of Rome), the
oath devised by him, 127, 161 ; his
complaint respecting appeals, 129;
his conduct respecting investitures,
161.
PATRIARCHS, their number, 35 ; pre
sence necessary to a General Coun
cil, 64 ; their confirmation, 72 ;
deposition, 74 ; restoration, 75 ; all
alike called ' ecumenical bishops,'
97 ; no appeal from, 105.
PELAGIUS II. (bishop of Rome), his
testimony against the papal usurp
ation, 78.
PETER (St.), how called ' chief of the
apostles/ 82 ; ' first member of the
Church,' 89 ; whether he was a
monarch, 252 et seqq. ; had a per
sonal preeminence, 252, 271 ; sense
of Matt. xvi. 18, respecting, 255;
distinctions as to his power, 257 ;
and titles of honour, 258 ; sense of
John xxi. 14, and other texts re
specting, 262268 ; whether his
preeminence was inherited by the
popes, 270280.
PETER-PENCE, history of, 170 et seqq.
PETO (Cardinal), not admitted by
Queen Mary, 143.
POPE, (see Roman Bishop).
PR^JMUNIRE, penalty of, 133, 151,
167.
PROVISORS, statute of, 140, 151, 155,
164.
R. C. (see Chalcedon, bishop of).
RECUSANTS (Romish), schismatical,
11, 314318.
REFORMATION (English), how con
ducted, 43 ; what powers then
denied the pope, 118.
RICHARD I., his conduct respecting
appeals, 130, 131.
ROMAN CHURCH, a true Church, 4,
5, 6, 16 ; particular, 7, 16 ; obe
dience denied to, 13 ; how it dis
turbs the Church Universal, 13,
14, 22, 23 ; how far we communi
cate with, 16 ; has made additions
to the faith, 18 ; charge laid
against, 23 ; several pretensions to
power over us, 26 ; how inconsist
ent, 26, 27, 40 ; when founded, "30 ;
how called ' head of all Churches,'
83, 84 ; whence it derived its great
ness, 98, 99 ; usurpations of, not
sanctioned by imperial law, 104 ;
divisions within its communion,
198, 204.
ROMAN BISHOP, became the Western
patriarch by degrees, 34, 35 ; his
jurisdiction limited, 35 ; exercised
334
INDEX.
no authority here for GOO years,
44, 112 ; took oath to obey the
Canons, 61 ; which deny his pre
tensions, GO et seqq. ; in like man
ner, practice against him, 71 et
seqq. ; what meant by his confir
mation of elections, 73 ; had no
power to depose patriarchs, 74;
nor to restore, 75 ; usurpations of,
unknown to ancient popes, 78 et
seqq. ; in what extreme cases ap
pealed to, 86, 101 ; his submission
to the emperor, 102 ; instances of
severity exercised upon, 103, 104,
212, 213 ; modern powers of, not
sanctioned by imperial law, 104 et
seqq. ; appeals to, denied by Afri
can Canons, 107 ; had no posses
sion of our obedience in Austin's
time, 115 ; his claims at the period
of the Reformation, 118; ancient
applications to, what they signified,
135; had no legislative power in
England, 144; no dispensatory
power, 152, 156, 158; exactions
of, resisted, 173 178; infallibility
of, disproved, 1 83 et seqq. ; not
universally held by Romanists,
198; supremacy of, not granted by
the emperor, 207 215, nor by
ecclesiastical Canons, 217 et seqq. ;
whether successor of St. Peter,
269 et seqq. ; monarchy of, not
recognized in the Councils, 290 ;
his schism and perjury, 293, 294.
ROMANISTS (Anglo), schismatics, 11,
314318.
RVFFINUS, his version of the sixth
Nicene Canon, 38 ; on the number
of Canons, 69.
SALONA (bishop of), how excommu
nicated, 85.
SAKDICA, Council of, (see Council}.
SCHISM, definition of, 3; act of, 3;
subject of, 4; condition of, 14;
application of, not to our Church,
17; to the Romanists, 22, 23, 318.
S. W. (i.e. William Sergeant), 15,
et alib.
T. C. (i. e. Thomas Carwell), 71, et
alib.
TELAUS (St.) consecrated bishops, &c.
without papal delegation, 51.
THEODORE (archbp. of Canterbury),
his behaviour towards Wilfrid,
57, 58.
TRADITION, concessions respecting,
194, 195.
UNIVERSAL BISHOP, title assumed by
Boniface III., 39 ; ancient use of,
in other dioceses, 39, 96; discarded
by Pelagius II., 78; by Gregory
the Great, 79 90 ; distinctions re
specting, 8790, 95, 96, 288.
VICTOR (bishop of Rome) excommu
nicates the Asian Churches, 90,
91.
Vioiijfs (bishop of Rome) excom-
nnmicated, 92.
WILFRID, his appeals to Rome, 56,
57, 76.
ZOSIMUS (bishop of Rome), his con
duct respecting the Nicene Canon,
70, 241 ; letter to, from the African
bishops, 108.]
THE END.
Works just Published or in the course of Pub
lication, ly J. $ /. J. Deighton.
Five Sermons Preached before the University of
Cambridge. The First Four in November, 1845. The Fifth on the
General Fast-Day, Wednesday, March 24th, 1847. By the Rev.
J. J. BLUNT, B. D., Margaret Professor of Divinity. 8vo. 5*. 6d.
Analysis of the Exposition of the Creed, written
by the Right Rev. Father in God, JOHN PEARSON, D. D., late Lord
Bishop of Chester. Third Edition, revised and corrected by W. H.
MILL, D. D., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge ; and Chap
lain to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. 8vo. cloth, 5*.
A Discourse on the Studies of the University
of Cambridge, by ADAM SEDGWICK, M.A., Woodwardian Professor
and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Fifth Edition, with
Additional Matter. Post 8vo. Nearly Ready.
Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the Creed, cor
rected throughout, and many References supplied. Edited for the
Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by TEMPLE CHEVALLIER,
B. D. Professor of Mathematics in the University of Durham, and
late Fellow and Tutor of St. Catharine's Hall, Cambridge. 8vo.
Nearly Ready.
The Homilies, with Various Readings, and the
Quotations from the Greek and Latin Fathers given at length, in the
Original Languages. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge Univer
sity Press, by G. E. CORRIE, B.D. Fellow and Tutor of St. Catharine's
Hall ; Norrisian Professor of Divinity in that University, and Exa
mining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Ely. 8vo. In the Press.
THEOLOGICAL WORKS,
RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY
J. & J. J. DEIGHTON,
Booksellers to H. R. H. the Chancellor of the University,
and Agents to the University,
CAMBRIDGE.
Acts of the Apostles. With Notes original and
selected. For the use of Students in the University. By HASTINGS
ROBINSON, D.D., formerly Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge.
8vo. 8*.
Annotations on the Acts of the Apostles. De
signed principally for the use of Candidates for the Ordinary B.A.
Degree, Students for Holy Orders, &c., with College and Senate-
House Examination Papers. By T. R. MASKEW, M.A., of Sidney
Sussex College, Cambridge, Head Master of the Grammar School,
Dorchester. Second Edition Enlarged. 12mo. 5*.
Altar Service. With the Kubricks, &c. in Red.
Royal."4to.
In Sheets 12*.
Calf, lettered and Registers 110.
Bibles, Prayer Books, and Church Services,
printed at the University Press, in a variety of bindings.
Blunt (Professor). Sketch of the Church of the
first Two Centuries after Christ, drawn from the Writings of the
Fathers, down to Clemens Alexandrinus inclusive. 8vo. 6*. 6d.
Blunt (Professor). An Introduction to a Course
of Lectures on the Early Fathers, now in delivery in the Univer
sity of Cambridge. Parts I. and II. 8vo. 2*. each.
1
THEOLOGICAL WORKS,
Bushby (Rev. E.) Introduction to the Study
of the Holy Scriptures. Fourth Edition, 12mo. 3*. Qd.
Bushby (Rev. E.) Essay on the Human Mind.
Fourth Edition, 12mo. 3*. 6d.
Butler (Bp.) An Analysis of his Three Ser
mons on Human Nature, and his Dissertation on Virtue. With
a concise Summary of his System of Morals. 12mo. Is.
Cheke (Sir John). Translation of the Gospel
according to St Matthew, and part of the first Chapter of the
Gospel according to St Mark, with original Notes. Also vn Origi
nal Letters of Sir J. Cheke. Prefixed is an Introductory Account
of the nature and object of the Translation. By J. GOODWIN, B.D.,
Fellow and Tutor of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Chrysostomi (S. Joannis). Homiliae in Mattheum.
Textum ad fidem codicum MSS. et versionum emendavit, pree-
cipuam lectionis varietatem adscripsit, annotationibus ubi opus erat,
et novis indicibus instruxit F. FIELD, A.M., Coll. SS. Trin. Socius.
3 vols. 8vo. 21. 2s. Large Paper, 41. 4*.
An Ecclesiastical History from the earliest period
to the present time, compiled from Eusebius, Bede, Mosheim, and
the most authentic Records. Designed for Schools and Students.
By the Editor of the Cambridge Edition of Ellington's Euclid.
Foolscap, 8vo. cloth, 5s.
Ecclesiae Anglicans Vindex Catholicus, sive Arti-
culorum Ecclesia Anglicanse cum Scriptis SS. Patrum nova Colla-
tio, cura G. W. HARVEY, A.M. Coll. Regal. Socii. 8vo. Vol. I. 16*.
Vol. II. 16*. Vol. III. 19*.
Fisk (Rev. G.) Sermons preached in the Parish
Church of St Botolph, Cambridge. 8vo. 10*. 6rf.
Select Poetry, chiefly Sacred, of the Reign of
King JAMES the First. Collected by EDWARD FARR, Esq., Editor
of Select Poetry of the Age of Queen Elizabeth. 16mo. cloth, 5*. Qd.
Garrick. Mode of Reading the Liturgy of the
Church of England. A New Edition, with Notes and a Preliminary
Discourse. By R. CULL, Tutor in Elocution. 8vo. 5s. 6d.
Parish Sermons. By the Rev. HARVEY GOOD
WIN, M.A., late Fellow of Gonville and Caius College. 12mo.
cloth, 6*.
Gospels. Questions on the Four Gospels, and
the Acts of the Apostles, Critical, Historical, and Geographical.
12mo. 3*. M.
PUBLISHED BY J. & J. J. DEIGHTON.
Hare (Archd.) Sermons preacht in Herstmon-
ceaux Church. 8vo. 12*.
Hey (Prof.) Lectures in Divinity. Delivered
in the University of Cambridge. Third Edition, 2 vols. 8vo. 11. 10*.
Hildyard (Rev. J.) Five Sermons on the Parable
of the Rich Man and Lazarus, preached before the University of
Cambridge. 8vo. 5*.
Hildyard (Rev. J.) Sermons, chiefly practical.
Preached in the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, during the years 1843,
1844, 1845. 8vo. 10*. Gd.
luteean l^rturea,
Alford (Rev. H.) For the Year 1841. The Con
sistency of the Divine Conduct in Revealing the Doctrines of Re
demption. To which are added Two Sermons preached before the
University of Cambridge. 8vo. 7*.
Alford (Rev. H.) For the Year 1842. The Con
sistency of the Divine Conduct in Revealing the Doctrines of Redemp
tion. Part the Second. 8vo. 6*.
Smith (Rev. They re T.) For the Year 1840. The
Christian Religion in connexion with the Principles of Morality.
8vo. 7*. Gd.
Babiiigton (C.) For the Year 1845. The In
fluence of Christianity in promoting the Abolition of Slavery in
Europe. 8vo. bds. 5*.
Ellicott (C. J.) For the Year 1843. The His
tory and Obligation of the Sabbath. 8vo. sewed, 3*. Gd.
Gruo-gen (F. J.) For the Year 1844. The Law
fulness and Obligation of Oaths. 8vo. 3*. Gd.
Hoare (A. M.) tor the Year 1H40. The Fitness of
Christianity to Improve the Moral and Social Condition of the
Northern Nations which overthrew the Ron^an Empire. 8vo. 3*. Gd.
The Third Centenary of Trinity College, Cam
bridge. A Sermon preached in the Chapel on Tuesday, December
22nd, 1846, being the Commemoration of Founders and Benefactors
By J. A. JEREMIE, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College. 8vo. 1*. Gd.
THEOLOGICAL WORKS,
Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.
Translated from the Greek into the English, with Notes, chiefly
for the advantage of English readers ; a Preliminary Dissertation,
and a short Analysis. By HENRY BROWN, M.A., 8vo. 9*. (Origin
ally printed in 1745.)
Jones (Rev. W. of Nayland). An Essay on the
Church. 12mo. Is. 6d.
Leighton (Arch.) Praelectiones Theologicse ; Parae-
neses, et Meditationes in Psalmos IV. XXXII. CXXX. Ethico-
Criticse. Editio nova, iterum recensente J. SCHOLEFIELD, A.M.,
Graec. Lit. apud Cantab. Professore Regio. 8vo. 8*. Gd.
Liturgise Britannicse ; or the several Editions of
the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, from its
compilation to the last revision ; together with the Liturgy set forth
for the use of the Church of Scotland ; arranged to shew their
respective variations. By W. KEELING, B.D., Fellow of St John's
College. 8vo. II. Is. The Rubrics in these Liturgies are printed
in red.
Margaret, Countess of Richmond and Derby, and
Foundress of Christ's and St John's Colleges, Cambridge, The
Funeral Sermon, preached by BISHOP FISHER in 1509; with BAKER'S
Preface to the same, &c. Edited by J. HYMERS, D.D., Fellow of
St John's College ; with illustrative Notes, Additions, and an Appen
dix. 8vo. 7-s. Qd.
Middleton (Dr. T. F.) The Doctrine of the
Greek Article applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New
Testament. With Prefatory Observations and Notes. By HUGH
JAMES ROSE, B.D. 8vo. 13*.
Mill (Dr. W. H.) Observations on the attempted
Application of PANTHEISTIC Principles to the Theory and Historic
Criticism of the GOSPEL. 8vo. 6s. 6d.
Mill (Dr. W. H.) The Historical Character of
St Luke's first Chapter, vindicated against some recent Mythical
Interpreters. 8vo. 4*.
Mill (Dr. W. H.) The Evangelical Accounts
of the Descent and Parentage of the Saviour, vindicated against
some recent Mythical Interpreters. 8vo. 4*.
Mill (Dr. W. H.) The Accounts of our Lord's
Brethren in the New Testament vindicated against some recent
Mythical Interpreters. 8vo. 4*.
Mill (Dr. W. H.) The Historical Character of
the Circumstances of our Lord's Nativity in the Gospel of St Mat
thew vindicated against some recent Mythical Interpreters. 8vo. 4*.
PUBLISHED BY J. & J. J. DEIGHTON.
Mill (Dr. W. H.) Preelectio Theologica in Scholis
Cantabrigiensibus habita Kal. Feb. A. D. 1843. 4to. 2s.
Mill (Dr. W. H.) Five Sermons on the Temp
tation of Christ our Lord in the Wilderness. Preached before the
University of Cambridge in Lent 1844. 8vo. Os. Qd.
Mill (Dr. W. H.) Sermons preached in Lent
1845, and on several former occasions, before the University of
Cambridge. 8vo. 12s.
Mill, (Dr. W. H.) Analysis of the Exposition of
the Creed, written by the Right Rev. Father in God JOHN PEAR
SON, D. D., late Lord Bishop of Chester. Second Edition, revised and
corrected. 8 vo.^ cloth. 5*.
Moore (Rev. Daniel.) Sermons preached before
the University of Cambridge in December 1844. 8vo. cloth, 4s.
Neale (Rev. J. M.) Ayton Priory, or the Restored
Monastery. 12mo. 4*.
Jones (John Herbert). For the Year 1846. If
they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be per
suaded, though one rose from the dead. 8vo. sewed, 2s. 6d.
Woolley (Rev. Joseph). For the Year 1843.
The Writings of the New Testament afford indications that this
portion of the Sacred Canon was intended to be a complete record
of Apostolical Doctrine. 8vo. sewed, 2*.
Woolley (Rev. Joseph). For the Year 1844. " By
one offering Christ hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
Heb. x. 14. 8vo. sewed, 2*.
Offices of the Church, with the Rubrics, &c. in
Red. Crown 8vo. sheets, 2s. black calf, 5*.
Paley. Analysis of the Principles of Moral and
Political Philosophy. By S. FENNELL, M.A., Fellow of Queens'
College. 12mo. 2*. 6d.
Paley. Analysis of the Evidences of Christianity.
By S. FENNELL,, M.A., &c. 12mo. 2*. Gd.
Paley. Examination Questions on the Evidences
of Christianity. 12mo. 2s. 6d.
6 THEOLOGICAL WORKS,
Parkhurst's Greek and English Lexicon to the
New Testament, with additions by the late HUGH JAMES JlosE. A
new edition carefully revised by J. R. MAJOR, D.D., King's Col
lege, London. 8vo. 11. 4s.
Preston (Theodore). jV?Hp- The Hebrew Text
and a Parallel Latin Version of the Book of Solomon, called Eccle-
siastes ; divided into the Sections adopted by R. Moses Mendles-
sohn, with a Literal Translation from the Rabbinic of his Com
mentary and Preface, and Original Notes, Philological and Exege-
tical. Also a New and Improved English Version of the same,
similarly arranged, with Introductory Analysis of the Sections ; to
which is prefixed a Preliminary Dissertation on the scope and Author
of the Book, and various writers of eminence, who have quoted or
illustrated it. 8vo. cloth, 15*.
Robinson (Professor). The Character of St Paul
the Model of the Christian Ministry. Four Sermons preached before
the University of Cambridge in 1840. 8vo.3*.
Scholefield (Professor). Hints for an Improved
Translation of the New Testament. Second edition, 8vo. 4s.
Scholefield (Professor). Scriptural Grounds of
Union, considered in Five Sermons preached before the University
of Cambridge in 1840. Second edition, 8vo. 3*. 6d.
Sedgwick (Prof.). Discourse on the Studies of
the University of Cambridge. Fifth edition, with Additions. 8vo.
cloth. 5*.
Smith (Rev. C.) Seven Letters on National Reli
gion. Addressed to the Rev. Henry Melvill, M.A. 8vo. 7*. Gd. >
Smyth (Prof.) Evidences of Christianity. 12mo.
cloth, 5*.
Tertullian. The Apology. With English Notes
and a Preface, intended as an Introduction to the study of Patris-
tical and Ecclesiastical Latinity. By H. A. WOODHAM, A.M., Fel
low of Jesus College, Cambridge. 8vo. 8*. Gd.
Thomas a, Becket. Sanctus Thomas Cantuari-
ensis, ed. J. A. GILES, LL.D. Eccles. Anglic. Presbyter, et Colleg.
C. C. Oxon. olhn Socius. 8 vols. 8vo. 41. 16s.
Turton (Dean). The Roman Catholic Doctrine
of the Eucharist considered, in reply to Dr. Wiseman's Argument
from Scripture. 8vo. 8s. Gd.
Turton (Dean). Observations on Dr. Wiseman's
Reply to Dr. Turton's Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist
considered. 8vo. 4s. Gd.
PUBLISHED BY J. & J. J. DEIGHTON.
Turton (Dean). A Vindication of the Literary
Character of Professor Person from the Animadversions of Bishop
Burgess, on 1 John v. 7. By CRITO CANTABBIGIENSIS. 8vo. 11s.
Usher (Archbp.) Answer to a Jesuit. With other
Tracts on Popery. 8vo. 13*. 6d.
Sermons preached at Jerusalem in the years
1842 and 1843. By the Rev. GEORGE WILLIAMS, M.A., Fellow
of King's College, Cambridge ; sometime Chaplain to the late Bishop
of the Anglican Church in that City. 8vo. 10s. Qd.
Wilson (Rev. Wm.) An Illustration of the Method
of Explaining the New Testament by the early Opinions of the
Jews and Christians concerning Christ. New Edition, 8vo. 8*.
6EOi>IAO2 AITA1KANO2, "H AIAAEKAAIA AIA
THN NEOAAIAN HEPI TH2 'EKKAH2IAS, KAI TOY 'AFTAIKOY
KAAAOT AYTH2. 'YIIO TOY AIAESIMOY KYPIOY XPISTOfcO-
POY 'ASlOAOrOY. CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D., Canon of
Westminster.
META*PA26EISA 'EK TOY 'AFFAIKOY, IIAPA STAMOY TPIK-
KAAIQTOY. 12mo. cloth, 6*.
A Catalogue of English and Foreign Theology
and Ecclesiastical History; comprising the Holy Scriptures in
various Languages, Liturgies, Fathers of the Church, &c. Part 1,
A to L. 8vo. Is. Allowed to Purchasers.
Preparing for Publication.
Blunt (Rev. J. J.) Five Sermons preached before
the University in November, 1845, to which are added, one preached
on the day of the late general Fast. By the Rev. J. J. BLUNT, B.D.,
Margaret Professor of Divinity.
Fullwood (F.) The Established Church ; or a Sub-
version of all the Romanists' Pleas for the Pope's Supremacy in
England. By FRANCIS FULLWOOD, formerly of Emmanuel College,
Cambridge, and Archdeacon of Totness.
This work, first published in 1673, and dedicated to Archbishop Sancroft, will
serve the purposes of a text-book to the Student of the papal controversy ;
placing before him in a short and well digested form, nearly all the arguments of
our best divines.
'sTLCYS It I
,. , BK
BOUND
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11